PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Development Agency Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Wednesday 6 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Violent Crime

Chris Grayling: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding violent crime in Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the First Secretary and his Cabinet colleagues about a range of issues, including levels of crime and the measures aimed at combating it. The Government are committed to improving the reporting and detection of violent crime, and to tackling its underlying causes.

Chris Grayling: I thank the Minister for that response. There has been much in the news of late about violent crime in London, but hon. Members will be concerned about the worrying trends in violent crime in Wales. The Minister will know that there is also considerable concern that county councils in Wales find the process of obtaining antisocial behaviour orders extremely bureaucratic. What steps is he taking to improve that, and to improve the campaign against violent crime in Wales?

Don Touhig: The British crime survey, generally regarded as the most authoritative measure of crime, has noted changes in public attitudes and a greater willingness to report crime. Between 1995 and 1999, there was a 22 per cent. fall in violent crime in England and Wales. Indeed, the detected rate in Wales for violent crime is running at 89 per cent.—nearly nine out of every 10 incidents. I pay tribute to the police for that.
	I share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the problems of using antisocial behaviour orders. In my constituency, I have encouraged the police and the local authority to use them. As he is probably aware, the Police Reform Bill currently before the House contains opportunities for extending the use of ASBOs. I hope that they will be taken up, as I believe that the orders can be used very positively by the police service and local authorities.

Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend the Minister will certainly have noted that, in Gwent, the numbers of violent crimes against the person, burglaries and thefts from vehicles have fallen by 5.7 per cent. Will he join me in congratulating the Gwent police on that, and in welcoming the 6.7 per cent. increase in the force's budget? That increase amounts to a rise in council tax of just £11.14 for a band D household. Does not he therefore consider that modest increases in council tax represent an excellent insurance policy?

Don Touhig: I recognise my right hon. Friend's point. I know that he has made strong representations about the funding of the Gwent police service. As a Gwent MP, I share his happiness at the success achieved by Gwent police in tackling crime and reducing crime levels. However, it is important that all of us in the wider community realise that we have to develop partnerships with the police service if we are to achieve meaningful and long-term reductions in crime. In the end, that comes to putting in the necessary resources, as the Government are doing. We also have to introduce reforms, and the Government will do that too.

Lembit �pik: Is the Minister aware of the organisation Youth at Risk, which has pioneered some ground-breaking work in addressing youth crime? The organisation's work to reduce the underlying causes of young offending has reduced reoffending by as much as 36 per cent.three times more than similar projects. Is the Minister willing to accept representations from Youth at Risk, and also to support its establishment in Wales?

Don Touhig: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, as it makes an important contribution to the wider debate about tackling crime. I am aware of the Youth at Risk project, and of the initiatives in west Belfast of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, which have achieved some success. People under the age of 18 commit about 7 million offences a year. It is important that we tackle youth crime and help young people involved in crime. I have been very impressed by the success that appears to have been achieved in west Belfast. I intend to raise the matter with the crime reduction director for Wales at our next meeting, so that we can examine how that success has been achieved in Northern Ireland, and to see whether we can develop such initiatives in Wales.

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the work of the women's safety unit in Cardiff, which aims to help women suffering domestic violence? The project is funded by the Home Office, but for 12 months only. Will he do his utmost to persuade my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to extend the funding period, so that the unit can continue its valuable work?

Don Touhig: I am aware of my hon. Friend's commitment to domestic violence issues, and of her hard work in that regard. Domestic violence is one of the Government's main priorities for crime reduction, and we have a Minister to co-ordinate action across Government in that respect. Domestic violence accounts for about 25 per cent. of all reported violence. I am aware of the Cardiff women's safety unit. There are eight other projects across Wales, and Government funding amounts to about 750,000. I plan to visit the project in Cardiff shortly, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to join me. I have no doubt that I will receive representations about ongoing funding for the project. I shall listen to them, and pass them on to the appropriate Minister.

Greg Knight: Is the Minister aware that in Wales, crimes of violence against the person are out of control and have more than doubled under Labour? They are up from 17,500 in 199798 to more than 38,000 last year. Is it not alarming, at a time of soaring violent crime, that the Government have so undermined police morale that the police are staging a demonstration on 13 March? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be adequate police cover in Wales on 13 March? When, at the beginning of his Administration, the Prime Minister said that he would be tough on crime and the causes of crime, what did he mean?

Don Touhig: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been learning some tactics from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). When the Government came to power, we looked at the way in which crime was recorded and we found it wanting. Indeed, the House will be interested to know that until the Government came to power, common assault was not counted as violence against the person, and neither were attacks on police officers. We were used to the previous Government doing all sorts of things with figureswe remember what they did with the unemployment figures. We have changed the way in which crime is recorded to make it more transparent. We are making it more accountable. We are putting in the resources and putting in place the reforms to tackle the rise in crime.
	As I have already said, there was a 22 per cent. fall in violent crime in England and Wales between 1995 and 1999. When the police officers are demonstrating in London to advance the cause that they want to get across to the Government, I have no doubt that Gwent police service and the police service throughout Wales will make sure that sufficient officers are on duty, doing their duty as we all expect.

Shellfish Industry

Martin Caton: What recent discussions he has held with the Secretary for Agriculture in the National Assembly for Wales about the Welsh shellfish industry.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the Minister for Rural Affairs in the National Assembly for Wales to discuss a range of issues, including the Welsh shellfish industry.

Martin Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I press him to take up with National Assembly Ministers, as well as with his colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the desperate plight of cockle gatherers who usually work the Loughor estuary, including many of my constituents? For eight months they have been unable to earn their living because of a series of positive tests for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. They need financial help and they need their estuary cleaned up. To do that will take action from Government agencies at UK level as well as from the National Assembly.

Don Touhig: Responsibility for the closure of the Burry inlet cockle beds rests with Carmarthen and Swansea county councils, which acted jointly in accordance with regulation 7 of the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations 1998. Having said that, however, I can tell my hon. Friend that on Monday I met representatives of the cockle-gathering industry in his constituency together with the Assembly Member for that constituency, Edwina Hart. I have been made fully aware of the problems that the cockle gatherers face, the difficulties caused by the cockle beds being closed for eight months and the impact that that has had on their industry and livelihood. I will make representations to other ministerial colleagues on their behalf and will happily ensure that my hon. Friend is included in the responses when I get them so that he can be fully in the picture and reassured that I and the Government will do all that we can to help the cockle gatherers in his constituency.

Foot and Mouth

Henry Bellingham: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about producing a Welsh action plan for preventing future outbreaks of foot and mouth.

Paul Murphy: I have regular meetings with the First Minister at which a variety of issues relating to foot and mouth are discussed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also has regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Rural Affairs.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State share the view of the Farmers Union of Wales that the impact of last year's foot and mouth crisis on Wales was devastating and had many ongoing effects? Does he also share the FUW's view that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food failed to understand the need of Welsh farmers during the crisis? For example, there was a serious breakdown in communication between MAFF and the National Assembly when MAFF culled out border farms and then failed to inform Welsh officials. Surely that is yet another reason to have a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth crisis, and will the Secretary of State support it?

Paul Murphy: I do not share those views. As a result of the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales and the Government, we have introduced a considerable number of packages and measures to help Welsh farming and the Welsh rural economy. It is not always enough, but we are trying to deal with what was, of course, a devastating blow for rural WalesI agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. The Assembly put 65 million into a rural recovery plan. The actions of a Labour-led Assembly and a Labour Government were absolutely right. We did what we could to put right a very difficult situation for Welsh farmers and the Welsh rural economy.

Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the distinct approach to agriculture that is being developed by the Welsh Assembly's Minister for Rural Affairs, Carwyn Jones? Does he believe that the priorities of the new action plan should include support for organic farming, expansion of the Tir Gofal agri-environmental scheme and greater support for Farming Connect? Will he join me in congratulating all the people at Usk agricultural college who put on the Farming Connect roadshow last Saturday, which attracted many farmers from Monmouthshire?

Paul Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments about Usk agricultural college, which I know well. It has done a marvellous job in the past few months in ensuring that farmers in Monmouthshire are well catered for. I also agreeI think that the people of Wales, including the farming community, would agree toothat the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs has done an excellent job during the past 12 months. There is no doubt about that. He is working together with the Government to ensure that we do all that we can to help rural Wales.

Roger Williams: Given the support of the Welsh farming community and the farming unions for the devolution of animal health functions to the Assembly, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with Assembly Ministers to introduce the secondary legislation that will enable that to happen?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman refers to an area in which during the past 12 months the Assembly has, de facto, done a great deal on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairsbefore that, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foodin terms of what happens in Wales. That is because it is much closer to the ground.
	Several matters remain to be dealt with in devolving any animal health functions to the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with Ministers in the Assembly.

Nigel Evans: When will the Secretary of State come off it? He knows that the handling of foot and mouth was botched. It cost 500 million and 35,184 cattle, 304,847 sheep and 5,941 pigs were slaughtered. Does he agree that the agriculture and tourism industries could not withstand another outbreak of foot and mouth? Does he agree with Bob Parry of the Farmers Union of Wales that one measure that would help Welsh and other British farmers would be to ban any substandard meat from coming into this country?

Paul Murphy: I agree that we must ensure that we are vigilant about the importation of illegal meat. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. However, he is wrong in one respect. His comments come badly from a member of the party that dealt so poorly with the BSE crisis not many years ago. If his party was in government, it would have done nothing different from what the Government have done over the past 12 months. Millions and millions of pounds have been paid out in compensation to the farming community, and millions more have been paid in Wales for a rural recovery plan.
	As regards tourism, the Assembly and the Government jointly are doing a great deal to bring tourists back to Wales, both from this country and abroad.

Nigel Evans: It is amazing, is it not, Mr. Speaker? The Secretary of State admits that we want to stop the importation of substandard meat, but the Government do nothing about it. When will they bring forward proposals to ensure that substandard meat is banned from entering this country, and when will the Secretary of State ensure that there are proper lines of communication? Last night was a warning shot across everybody's bows. We all feared that there would be another outbreak of foot and mouth. When will he ensure that cheap imports of food into Britain are banned?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right about last night and we should remain vigilant in rural areas about foot and mouth. On meat imports, we recognise the genuine concerns of the farming community. That is why the Government, the Assembly, local authorities and Customs and Excise are working together to ensure that there is much greater vigilance and much greater public information. There is a tremendous amount of activity within government to ensure that we alert people to the dangers of illegally imported food. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman on that. However, he is wrong to say that the Government do not recognise the problems because we certainly do.

Farming and Food

Elfyn Llwyd: What discussions he has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) the National Assembly for Wales on the implementation of the report Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future, with particular reference to modulation; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Murphy: I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues and the National Assembly for Wales in which a wide range of farming issues are discussed.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply which, bearing in mind the fact that he had a month's notice of the specific question, is rather pathetic. Does he agree with the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union Wales that flat-rate modulation would be ruinous for the smaller and medium-sector Welsh farmer? It is included in the report on England, which also says that it should happen in Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman is truly batting for Wales, when will he stand by the crease?

Paul Murphy: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree in principle with modulation. After all, his party voted in favour of it in the National Assembly not so long ago. I am sure that he would also agree with what his colleagues in the European Parliament say as members of the European group. They want a
	step-by-step reallocation of the European Union budget for the CAP from surplus management to an integrated rural development policy.
	That is all about modulation. The hon. Gentleman's party in Europe and the Assembly wants modulation.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that discussions on the details are still taking place between the National Assembly and the Government. Of course we will look carefully at those. He knows that there is a distinction between the Welsh farming community and the farming community in England, and we will consider those issues. However, his party is in favour of modulation in principle, and so is mine.

Win Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a shame that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) introduces a critical and sallow note to the farming debate, especially as there is general agreement throughout Wales and in the hon. Gentleman's party that my Assembly Member, Carwyn Jones, has done a great job in leading the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Department? Is it not good that Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future contains a blueprint that all people from rural communities in Wales fully support so that we can develop the food industry in Wales to maximise profits for our rural communities?

Paul Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although I expect ignorant criticism of the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs from Members who represent English constituencies, I would not expect it from a Welsh Member of Parliament.

Training

Albert Owen: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the Government's steps to improve the training skills of the Welsh work force.

Paul Murphy: Increasing skills is vital to raising productivity in all parts of Britain. Skills measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget statement will result in consequential allocations to the Welsh block, but it will be for the Assembly to decide how those funds are allocated among Welsh programmes.

Albert Owen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that there should be greater co-operation between schools, training providers and the business community to match training to the needs of industry? Does he also agree that there should be a skills audit in areas of high unemployment, such as my constituency, to identify deficiencies in skills to ensure that we have even economic development throughout Wales?

Paul Murphy: Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Only this morning, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales introduced a document on skills and employment action that outlines no fewer than 50 actions to improve training and education among the work force in Wales. I also agree that that should start in schools, which is why the Assembly is introducing in Wales, as we are in England, vocational GCSEs in schools from September 2002. In many ways, Wales leads the United Kingdom in training and skills for young people.

Chris Ruane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 1,000 jobs have been created on the St. Asaph business park, which is in my constituency, but that only 100 such jobs were created under the Tories? However, if that growth is to continue, my community needs skilled workers. That is the No. 1 issue. What representations is he making to the National Assembly on that important issue?

Paul Murphy: I have visited my hon. Friend's constituency and St. Asaph, and as he knows, ELWa has recently given some 3 million to colleges in north Wales to support development of its manufacturing base. He asks what the Assembly and I are doing to improve training in Wales. The most important thing that the Government and the Assembly are doing is funding new training and new skills. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget report makes clear, some 40 million extra was given to Wales for training. As a result of that and other measures, Wales leads the way in training in the United Kingdom.

North Wales Police

Ian Lucas: If he will discuss with the Home Secretary the level of funding for North Wales police.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I have regular contact with colleagues about issues affecting Wales. Under the police settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 30 January, the North Wales police authority is set to receive a grant of 41.1 million, together with an additional 300,000 to bring the authority's grant increase up to 2.3 per cent. In 200203, it will also receive 28.7 million from the Assembly as part of the local government settlement. Together with the assumed 5 per cent. increase in the precept, that will constitute a budget increase for this year of 4.8 per cent., although I understand that the precept may be further increased by the police authority.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Is he also aware of the excellent way in which Wrexham county borough council is securing additional funding for closed circuit television schemes in north Wales? I recently met two contented police officers who administer a 150,000 CCTV scheme on the Wrexham industrial estate. Will my hon. Friend please encourage other local authorities across Wales to apply for more money to fight crime?

Don Touhig: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, in his constituency 525,000 has been made available for CCTV in the period 1999 to 2002. The Government have made available 9 million for CCTV in town centres and car parks throughout Wales. That is having a positive impact on crime and crime reduction. It reassures the public and gives a warning to those out to commit crime that they will be detected.

Hywel Williams: Given that the majority of police funding in Wales comes from within that country, is it not high time that responsibility for the police was devolved to Cardiff?

Don Touhig: The Government have no plans to do that.

Tourism

Michael Fabricant: When he next plans to meet the National Assembly secretaries to discuss tourism into Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: I have regular discussions with the First Minister and other Assembly members on a range of issues, including tourism in Wales.
	The year 2001 was a challenging one for Welsh tourism, given the foot and mouth epidemic and the tragic events of 11 September. I therefore welcome the Wales tourist board's new 10 million advertising campaign, which will have a big impact on bringing tourists back to Wales.

Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that people such as Mrs. Pugh of Dolfanog Fach, are adopting the right attitude by approaching people to visit their guest houses? Does he also agree that mid-Wales has much to offer? What steps can the Government take to ensure that too many burdens are not placed on small businesses such as farms, which are open to guests?

Don Touhig: I well recall the hon. Gentleman's question to me in June, in which he mentioned Mrs. Meirwen Pugh and her farm at Talyllyn. Since then I have travelled round many parts of Wales and I am greatly encouraged by the improvement in the tourist industry. People are taking holidayslong breaks and short breaksin Wales, including the hon. Gentleman and many from his part of the world. I hope that he will continue to do that and to encourage many others to do likewise. The Government have been putting in the funding to encourage the tourist boards and others to make Wales a more attractive place to visit. That will be a success at the end of the day, so I look forward to many more people coming to Wales for their holidays this year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's advert for Mrs. Meirwen Pugh is much appreciated.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Tony McWalter: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 February.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend is sometimes subject to rather unflattering or even malevolent descriptions of his motivation. Will he provide the House with a brief characterisation of the political philosophy that he espouses and which underlies his policies?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Tony Blair: First, I should thank my hon. Friend for his question, which has evinced such sympathy in all parts of the House, about the criticism of me. The best example that I can give is the rebuilding of the national health service today under this Governmentextra investment. For example, there is the appointment today of Sir Magdi Yacoub to head up the fellowship scheme that will allow internationally acclaimed surgeons and consultants from around the world to work in this country. I can assure the House and the country that that extra investment in our NHS will continue under this Government. Of course, it would be taken out by the Conservative party.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does it remain a principle of the Prime Minister to sack any Cabinet Minister who lies?

Tony Blair: Yes, of course. I expect the highest standards of propriety.

Iain Duncan Smith: Yesterday, the Transport Secretary admitted to the House that he told the British people something that was fundamentally untrue. Before the Prime Minister came to power, he said:
	I would expect Ministers in a Government I lead to resign if they lie.
	If that is so, why is the Transport Secretary today still in his job and sitting on the Bench next to him?

Tony Blair: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. My right hon. Friend came to the House yesterday and made an absolutely full statement, and he and his Department should now be allowed to get on with the issues that really matter to peoplefor example, issues to do with the botched privatisation of transport and the extra investment in our transport system that it needs. Of course, that is the last thing the right hon. Gentleman will ever ask me about.

Iain Duncan Smith: Now we know that the Prime Minister clearly is not going to stand by his word. Under this Transport Secretary, rail delays are up by 40 per cent., and even last night passengers petitioned the Government to get rid of the Transport Secretary. After yesterday, no one will ever believe the Transport Secretary again.
	Before the Prime Minister came to power he also said that under his Government there would be
	no more sleaze, no more lies, no more broken promises.
	It is bad enough that such a Cabinet Minister does not resign, but last night the Prime Minister rolled out the red carpet at No. 10 and congratulated him. Is it any wonder that the public's trust in politicians has fallen so low when the Prime Minister is too weak to root out dishonesty?

Tony Blair: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what the Transport Secretary will concentrate on: sorting out a privatisation that has wrecked the state of Britain's railways, ensuring that we get the largest ever investment into the London underground and appointing the right people to the Strategic Rail Authority, so that we get the extra rolling stock and investment that the transport system needs.
	Those are the issues, and there are two parallel agendas. One agendathat of the Conservative party and parts of the mediais to do with scandal and gossip, day after day. The other agenda is about the economy, living standards, jobs, the NHS, education, crime, and the real issues of transport. He can concentrate on the first; we will concentrate on the second.

Dai Havard: Is the Prime Minister aware of the excellent work of the Merthyr crime reduction partnership? Will he join me in congratulating it on receiving a British community safety award for car crime prevention initiatives in my constituency? [Hon. Members: Reading.] Is he also aware, however, that our efforts to extend crime prevention work are being frustrated because of the lack of use of antisocial behaviour orders? Will he therefore undertake to speed up both the implementation and issue of those orders? Will he ensure that they are used much more frequently[Hon. Members: Reading.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should let the hon. Member put his question. [Hon. Members: He is reading.] Order. I am not reading, and I am saying that the hon. Gentleman should be able to put his question.

Dai Havard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend increase the frequency with which the orders are used when ex-offenders are returned to the community, so that we are equipped and armed to deal with crime reduction?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend should not be in the least surprised at the jeers from the Conservatives. After all, he was asking a question about a serious issue that concerns his constituents. Of course the Conservatives are not interested in it.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that antisocial behaviour orders are an important part of the armoury of law enforcement in our country today. We need to make them easier to use, because the one thing that makes life hell for people in their local communities is the serious antisocial disturbance and behaviour of groups, particularly of youngsters, and families. I urge local authorities and the police in his constituency and others up and down the country to work together to use the orders more widely. We shall announce shortly, however, changes to how they operate so that they are less bureaucratic and easier to enforce.

Charles Kennedy: In spite of the somewhat inadequate inquiries of a minute or two ago, will the Prime Minister explain to people out there in the country why exactly he retains confidence in his Transport Secretary?

Tony Blair: For the very reason contained in the statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday, where he explained exactly what has happened, and because I believe that in the end the judgment that should be made, and indeed will be made, about this Secretary of State and this Government will be on the real issues to do with transportthe things that actually concern people in this country. I know that the Conservative party does not want to argue about them, but we do.

Charles Kennedy: There is no doubt that that is what the Transport Secretary and, indeed, the Government deserve to be judged on, but if their presiding over a shambolic railway system, the financial failure of air traffic services, and their ploughing ahead with the part privatisation of the London tube in the face of popular sentiment and their own Labour-dominated Select Committee add up to confidence in the Transport Secretary, will the Prime Minister explain what would lead to a loss of confidence?

Tony Blair: Let me deal with each of those issues in turn. First, in relation to the railway infrastructure, we know the problems caused by the lack of investment over many years and a privatisation which I think is generally regarded as botched and wrong. It was absolutely right that after the Hatfield rail disaster there was a full audit of the state of the infrastructure, from which time it was decided that there would have to be almost a complete renewal of it. That will require time to undertake and large amounts of investment. We are getting that investment in. It is right that it will take some time to sort out the mess of privatisation, but it will be done.
	Secondly, in relation to National Air Traffic Services, the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. In respect of air traffic control, there has been pressure on systems and on the companies operating them around the world as a result of 11 September. The difference is that, in fact, as a result of the public-private partnership, we have managed to get hundreds of millions of pounds into the Exchequer which can then be used for the purposes of rebuilding the infrastructure over time. [Interruption.] Never mind pointing at Labour Memberswhy does the right hon. Gentleman not listen to the answers that I am giving?
	The third issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises is in respect of London underground. From this April, there will be the largest investment in the London underground since the tube was built. Yes, part of that money will come from the private sector. If we did not get the 4 billion or 5 billion from the private sector, we would have to take it out of the capital investment programmes for schools and hospitals and other things.
	Those are the answers to the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks me, but I agree with him about one thing: it is on those questions that ultimately we are and should be judged.

Colin Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency as we speak, wild hares are being torn to pieces by dogs in that great spectator event, the Waterloo cup? Does he share the disgust with that activity expressed by 81 per cent. of those surveyed in the most recent poll, and their desire for hare coursing to be banned and the annual atrocity at Altcar ended? Will he please tell us when the will of the House, expressed by overwhelming majorities in recent years, will be implemented? When will we follow the example of Scotland and ban the hunting of our wild mammals by a minority's dogs?

Tony Blair: There will be an announcement made on the timing of the vote that we promised both in the manifesto and in the Queen's Speech. That announcement will be made shortly.

Matthew Green: I am sure that the Prime Minister agrees that Britain's livestock industry produces meat to the highest animal welfare and food hygiene standards in the world. Is he aware that imported meat often does not meet the same standards that we expect our farmers to reach, and is often cheaper than locally reared meat? For the sake of both the livestock industry and consumers, will he ensure that there is a level playing field, so that all meat imports have to meet the same standards as meat produced here?

Tony Blair: I agree that that is an issue, and we are working on it with the farming industry. First, if imported meat is coming into this country in contravention of the rules, it should not be. That is why we are working with the industry to tighten the rules. Secondly, it is important to secure a sustainable future for British farming. The basis for that was outlined in the recent report by Sir Donald Curry. We need to make sure that we work with the farming industry to ensure that British produce, which is of really high quality, can be marketed and sold properly not only in this country, but throughout the world.

Tom Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that police officers should not have to work long hours of overtime either to provide a first-class service, or to have a decent standard of living?

Tony Blair: I think it important that police officers work under terms and conditions of employment that are right for the modern age. I have no doubt that we will be able to work with those in the police service not only to make changes in terms of policing reform, but to make major changes to our criminal justice system which will deliver the type of criminal justice system and police service that we need in this day and age.

Nicholas Winterton: Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Prime Minister rightly takes an active interest in Africa, not least because many countries on that continent are part of the Commonwealth. Does he share my grave concern about the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe? Does he not think it absolutely outrageous that in the middle of the presidential campaign, the president's opponent and two of his close colleagues have been charged with treason? In the event ofI hopethe right outcome and the election of the candidate of the Movement for Democratic Change, what contingency plans do the Prime Minister and his Government have to help that country out of the hellhole in which its people currently live?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely that what is happening in Zimbabwe is an outrage. The actions of Robert Mugabe are completely undemocratic, wrong and dictatorial. It is for that reason that we argued with other members of the European Union in favour of sanctions being applied; we will make the same case in the Commonwealth. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should nowand we are doing so in our discussions with other countries in Europe and in the Commonwealthconcentrate on making sure that if the result goes against Mr. Mugabe, although we cannot be sure that it will because of some of the appalling things that have been happening, we are in a position to ensure that the proper democratically elected Government of Zimbabwe are supported.

Caroline Flint: It was announced today that 50 years of peat working is to end on three sites in the United Kingdom, including Hatfield moors in my constituency and Thorne moors in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). Is not that landmark agreement a good example of how the Government are supporting conservation and sustainability? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Thorne and Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum, which has for many years fought hard to save those precious peat lands? Will he commit the Government to supporting and promoting the alternatives to peat for Britain's gardeners?

Tony Blair: I congratulate not just my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) but my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on leading that campaign with the pressure group that led it locally. The issue is important. Three internationally important sites are involved. If we can discover ways of promoting sustainable development, benefits will flow for the whole country.
	The House may think that these issues are unimportant, but if people read the latest data and work on sustainable development and on the environmental degradation that will cause huge problems throughout the world, they will realise that some of these issues are far more important in the long term than they may seem.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether teacher vacancies in schools have gone up or down in the last year?

Tony Blair: Teacher vacancies have gone up. Part of the reason for that, however, is that so many more teaching posts are available.

Iain Duncan Smith: That must be one of the most feeble answers ever given. The figures slipped out by the Department for Education and Skills last Fridaythis Government love Fridaysshow that vacancies have almost doubled and that schools were short of more than 5,000 teachers in the last year, which is up from 3,000 in the year before. The Prime Minister talks about the number of new teachers being recruited. Will he tell us now how many teachers left schools in the latest year for which figures are available?

Tony Blair: I do not have those figures, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that what he was saying a moment ago is absolute nonsense. Thousands more teachers are in place since we came to office. There are vacancies because schools are recruiting and have been given additional sums of investment. There are schools in my constituency, his constituency and up and down this country where we can see the new teachers, school buildings and classroom assistants.
	The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe that that investment should go in. Time and again, we ask the right hon. Gentleman for a commitment that the Conservative party supports that investment. Can we now have it?

Iain Duncan Smith: Another feeble answer from the Prime Minister. If he wants to talk about my constituency, he should ask himself why at least one or two of those schools have had to struggle out of special measures while his Government have been in power. [Hon. Members: Reading.] The answer that he would not give is that 19,000 teachers left schools in 19992000. Ofsted reports that 20 per cent. of

Hon. Members: Reading!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the Leader of the Opposition put his question. Some hon. Members are behaving rather childishly.

Iain Duncan Smith: They would do anything to protect their Prime Ministerabsolutely anything, Mr. Speaker.
	Ofsted reports that 20 per cent. of newly qualified teachers have left the profession in the last three years. The Prime Minister must therefore answer this question. Instead of messing around with exams and piling more paperwork on teachers, why does he not address the problems to which teachers' leaders have drawn attentionmorale going down, a lack of discipline and teachers leaving the profession?

Tony Blair: Never mind about protecting me; it is the right hon. Gentleman who needs protection. Did I just hear him say, messing about with exams? I think that it is important that our children take exams. Fortunately, under this Government, exam results are going up. The numbers of teachers in schools have gone up for the simple reason that I have giventhis Government are putting more money into our schools. If he talks to teachers not only in his constituency but up and down this country, he will find that they have seen the investment going into school rooms and school buildings.
	As for schools in special measures, this Government have taken schools out of those special measures since we came to power. That is one reason why the Ofsted report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred concluded that education in this country is improving.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Denzil Davies: Recently, my right hon. Friend met the Italian Prime Minister to discuss European Union matters. Is he not concerned that Silvio Berlusconi and Jacques Chirac are able, with their votes in the EU, to shape legislation that is binding on the people of Britain, despite the facts that neither is accountable to the British electorate and that both face serious corruption allegations? Also, their domestic policies are not the sort of policies that would be supported by most people in Britain.

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend has a deeply held and principled position, which is to be against our membership of the European Union. I happen to disagree with that. It is in the nature of legislation inside the EU that it has to be negotiated and agreed. I believe that we benefit far more from being constructive partners in Europe than from being semi-engaged in Europe.
	When we came to office back in May 1997, this country was completely and totally marginalised in Europe. It had no proper power and no proper influence as a result of the divisions within the Conservative party. I am pleased that that is no longer the case. I know and believe that the vast majority of people in Britain, whatever worries they have about the EUit is important that there should be EU reformsbelieve that we should be in the EU fighting our corner and getting the best for Britain, rather than on the path to exiting the EU.

Henry Bellingham: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister say whether it is acceptable for a Cabinet Minister to lie and remain in office? Will he guarantee that he will not move the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the next reshuffle?

Tony Blair: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend.

Martin Linton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware of the murder of the estate agent Timothy Robinson in an horrific attack on a Battersea street a month ago today. What assurances can he give my constituents that there will be more bobbies on the beat in Battersea; that there will be more street warden schemes, like the scheme that is starting in Clapham Junction on 1 April; and above all that the Government, who have been so successful in reducing burglary and car crime, will dedicate the same resources and the same determination to ridding our streets of street crime?

Tony Blair: May I first express my sympathy to the family of one of my hon. Friend's constituents? He is right to raise the issue of street crime, which is a serious problem in London and elsewhere in inner cities. It is for that reason that the Metropolitan police are taking action that is specifically targeted on it.
	There are two things that the Government must do. First, we must provide resources for additional police officers. I think that in the past year, about 1,000 extra officers have been recruited to the Metropolitan police. We must carry on that programme.
	Secondly, we must make changes to the criminal justice system that allow us to get people to court quicker and give us the opportunity not to give bail to those who may be a threat to our communities. We must ensure that sentences that follow convictions are proper sentences that fit the crime. I say to all right hon. and hon. Members that this will be a major part of the Government's legislative agenda over the next few years. If people are serious about tackling the problems of crime on our streets, they must back our legislation, because it is needed.

Nicholas Soames: In addition to the incompetence and muddle that now define the Prime Minister's Government, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is also the substantial charge of unfairness? Is he aware that West Sussex county council receives only 300 per week under the standard spending assessment for the care of an elderly person? An equivalent elderly person in Islington receives 917 per week. Will the Prime Minister do what he can, please, to restore the deficit of 13 million in West Sussex county council's social services budget, and ensure that the vulnerable elderly of West Sussex are properly cared for?

Tony Blair: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the position in West Sussex, as I am not familiar with the details. Overall, there has been an increase in social services spending of about 20 per cent. in the past few years, which contrasts with the preceding few years, when there was a rise of barely 1 per cent. However, we accept that there is more to be done, particularly in making sure that care home places are available. For that reason, about 1.4 billion is to be invested over the next few years. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the position in his constituency and council area.

Charlotte Atkins: This week's decision to allow pensioners to claim benefits for the first 13 weeks of a hospital stay is extremely welcome, but does my right hon. Friend recognise that the pay gap between men and women at work becomes a pay chasm in pension entitlement? Is it right that women should have to pay that price for caring for their families?

Tony Blair: I understand my hon. Friend's point. In spanning any chasm, it is necessary to take account of the resources available. However, she is right to say that the decision to extend the entitlement to 13 weeks has been widely welcomed. That had been unchanged since 1948 and it will bring considerable relief, especially to many elderly people. It is worth pointing out that as a result of the above-inflation rises in basic state pension, the winter fuel allowance and the free TV licences, prescriptions, eye tests and so onas a result of all those measures taken together, we will have increased the amount of expenditure on pensioners by 6 billion a year from April. That is an indication of our support and dedication to making sure that their dedication and commitment are properly recognised.

Paul Burstow: Given that the Employers Forum on Age estimates that it costs the country 31 billion a year to deal with ageism in the workplace, will the Prime Minister explain why it is sensible to delay for another five years legislation to deal with age discrimination in the workplace? Should we not be getting rid of age discrimination now and legislating in this Parliament and this Session?

Tony Blair: Everybody wants to get rid of age discrimination; the question is how to do it in a sensible way that does not impose undue burdens on employers. As I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, there are huge practical issues to be worked through to make sure that any type of anti-discrimination measures work. It is important that we do that in consultation with employers, particularly small businesses and others that may be affected. I entirely agree with the objective, but it is important that we implement it sensibly.

Gareth Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend consider making further funding available for maternity services? In particular, will he ask our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health to look speedily and sympathetically at a 12 million bid to modernise the maternity services unit at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituents? Although I recognise that significant additional funding has been made available to my health authority, which is clearly an excellent start, will my right hon. Friend encourage our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health to recognise that further funding is necessary to get the unit modernised?

Tony Blair: I know that an application has been submitted by those in my hon. Friend's constituency which will be considered in due course. He is right to single out maternity services as a necessary part of the Government's additional investment and expenditure. Precisely for that reason, we are making sure that additional resources go into our national health service.

David Burnside: The Prime Minister will remember well the very difficult decision made four years ago as part of the Belfast agreement to release all prisoners in Northern Ireland, both republican and so-called loyalist, who were guilty of the most horrific crimes. The people of Northern Ireland backed that because the prisoners were released on licence. It was not easy, but because the prisoners were released on licence, they would go back inside if they committed further crimes and terrorism.
	Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to the House that he will stop the process, which I believe is far advanced, of initiating and legislating for an amnesty for those who committed crimes in Ulster in the past 30 years? That would drive a coach and horses through the confidence of the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland in the Belfast agreement.

Tony Blair: We have said that the issue of those people who have been charged with crimes in the past has to be dealt with. How it is dealt with is a matter under discussion, but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this point: those convicted prisoners who were given early release were released on licence, so that if they breach the licence conditions, they can be put back in prison again. I hope that he understands that we accept that the measure was very difficult for people in Northern Ireland to accept as part of the Belfast agreement. However, I believe that that agreement, taken as a whole, has given us a chance for the future in Northern Ireland. So we must consider very carefully how to proceed, but I hope that we will have his support in ensuring that the Belfast agreement is maintained.

Points of Order

Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it has been a long-standing convention of the House that, in the interests of good cross-examination of Ministers, statements are released to Opposition spokesmen well in advance? Are you aware that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions yesterday released his statement only a matter of minutes before coming to the Dispatch Box? Would you[Interruption.] I am not surprised that the Government Chief Whip does not want to hear this. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear the right hon. Member's point of order.

Andrew MacKay: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Would you deprecate such short notice, and, if it happens again, ensure that the sitting is suspended so that Opposition spokesmen can properly consider what is in the statement? It was quite clear yesterday that the admission that the Secretary of State had misled the British public on the Dimbleby programme was not given to other spokesmen in advance so that they could properly cross-examine him.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a rule of the House but a courtesy that Ministers give as much warning as possible of any statement that they are going to make. I encourage Ministers to do that. [Interruption.] Order. If there is any difficulty or short notice in future, I can use my discretion, but I would rather encourage Ministers to give out their statements well in advance.

Andrew Turner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing further to that point of order. I have explained the situation exactly.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, during questions on the Transport Secretary's statement, I asked:
	Did he make Martin Sixsmith's resignation a condition of Jo Moore's resignation?[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 575.]
	The Secretary of State said No. On Newsnight last night, contemporaneous notes were revealed of a conversation between Sir Richard Mottram and Martin Sixsmith on the afternoon of 18 February. I quote directly:
	The bigger roadblock is Byers. He's invested so much face in this that his credibility is very much on the line. He has also made a firm promise to Jo that if she stepped down he would get your head to roll as well so it would be very hard for him to announce that you hadn't completely resigned after all.
	That confirms stories in The Sunday Times of 24 February

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to use points of order to put a case. He is aware of the rules of the House. There are ways in which he can pursue matters, including parliamentary questions or Adjournment debates. He is trying to draw the Chair into the argument that he is advancing. I do not have anything further to say on that matter.

Crispin Blunt: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not have anything further to say on that matter.

Crispin Blunt: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should pursue this matter. I think that he has finished.

Crispin Blunt: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter is finished.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the House of Lords Annunciators announced the proposed statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at about 12 o'clock, but the Annunciators in this place did not give such notice until at least half an hour later. Is there anything that you can do to assist us in knowing when such statements will be made?

Mr. Speaker: I do not control affairs in the other place.

BILL PRESENTED

Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment)

Mr. Frank Field presented a Bill to permit the Secretary of State to withhold payment of housing benefit on grounds of anti-social behaviour in certain circumstances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 102].

Fireworks

Joan Ryan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the retail sale of fireworks and use of fireworks by the general public.
	I am sure many Members will be aware, if only from their postbags, that the problems caused by fireworks are extensive, and are no longer restricted to an annual seasonal event. The industry's voluntary code, which aims to promote the safer use of fireworks, stipulates that they are to be displayed to the public for only three weeks prior to 5 November, and for a few days afterwards. Unfortunately, however, the code is notably redundant, and fireworks are readily available to the public from retail outlets throughout the year.
	Several significant problems are caused by the retail sale of fireworks. The most immediate is the number of injuries resulting from their use. In extreme cases their use can lead to fatalities. That, tragically, happened in the case of 13-year-old Martin Lamparter, a young man who lived in my constituency with his family and who was killed last December in an accident involving a firework. The event has devastated his family and the local community.
	Even more tragic is the fact that Martin's death was not an isolated incident. Five deaths in the last five years have been directly attributable to fireworks. All were unnecessary, and would have been avoided had the retail sale of fireworks to the general public been prohibited.
	Yet despite the focus of past debate on the subjecttending to centre on the devastating effects of injury and the potential for fatalities that fireworks possessthe hazard to human welfare of fireworks has not proved a sufficient propellant to effect the change in legislation for which my Bill calls. Following the implementation of the 1997 firework safety regulations, there was an 8 per cent. reduction in the number of firework casualties in 1998. However, the 30 per cent. drop in the volume of sales in that year makes the apparent decrease in injuries superficial, as proportionally the number of injuries was significantly higher. The number of casualties increased in both 1999 and 2000.
	In recent weeks I have received many letters expressing support for the Bill, for a variety of reasonsnot just because of the physical injuries that fireworks are capable of inflicting. The National Campaign for Firework Safety strongly supports the Bill, and has long recognised that under current legislation fireworks are a multi-faceted menace, at best a nuisance and at worst fatal.
	The support that I have received of late has come not least from those concerned about the noise generated by fireworks. The noise pollution is not the occasional and tolerable inconvenience that it was once, but an ever-increasing source of fear and anxiety, especially to vulnerable groups in society. Such distress is not confined to people, but extends to domestic petssome of which have had to be put down as a resultas well as farm animals and wildlife.
	All those latter problems do not even necessarily entail the abuse of fireworks. When fireworks are deliberately misused, their effects are even more profound, exacerbating the possibility of injury, death and fear as well as fostering additional problems. The abuse of fireworks results in antisocial behaviour, criminal damage andas police in Oldham, Bradford and Northern Ireland have foundtheir conversion into weapons.
	Current legislation is failing to be effective primarily because it is reactive. Police powers are restricted to responding to specific offences arising from the misuse of fireworks, and the law, while making it an offence for under-18s to purchase fireworks, does not make their possession of fireworks illegal.
	This is a serious problem. Statistics demonstrate that the greatest percentage of firework injuries are to those aged 15 or younger, accounting for some 40 to 50 per cent. of all firework injuries over the past five years. Such evidence clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of current regulations. If the current law were more vigorously enforced and the under-age use of fireworks all but eliminated, firework safety could still not be guaranteed. Age alone does not qualify someone to use explosive devices responsibly and competently. Being old enough to drive does not automatically qualify a person to do so. The safety provisions relating to driving require that a licence be obtained in addition to an age criterion being met. I believe that there is a strong enough case to draw a parallel between driving and the use of fireworks.
	Only those who are trained and licensed should be able to access and use fireworks, because even when they are used within the law and with the best of intentions, they are still proving hazardous. Addressing the many problems caused by fireworks requires far more than the further enforcement of current statutes or the entrenching of the voluntary code into law. A statutory code that emulates the current voluntary code would not prevent the problems that I have identified from manifesting themselves around 5 November.
	In addition, it is discriminatory to allow the sale of fireworks to the public to commemorate one historical and cultural eventbonfire nightbut to deny other celebrations such as Diwali and the Chinese new year the opportunity to include fireworks in their festivities. The only safe and fair option is a complete ban on the retail sale of fireworks to the general public. All festivities would thus be entitled to include fireworks as part of their celebrations, provided that they were used in organised and licensed displays.
	There will be those who will object to such a prohibition, perhaps because their profit or employment depends on the sale or manufacture of fireworks, yet the legal requirement for pyrotechnic professionals will create a new niche in the market. An economic calculation must be balanced against the paramount principles of public welfare and safety, and the cost borne by the taxpayer in picking up the tab for the damage caused by fireworks.
	There will be those who will contest this Bill under the banner of liberty, on the basis of defending the public's freedom to continue to purchase what essentially constitute explosives. Ironically, in attempting to defend liberty they fail to extend it to those who wish to be free from excessive noise pollution, fear, criminal damage and injury.
	A further form of opposition will come from those who claim that banning the retail sale of fireworks to the public will result in the creation of a black market. There is little evidence to support that. However, those who cite other examples of prohibitionsuch as alcoholmust concede that lighting noisy, colourful explosives is going to be much harder to conceal than consuming alcohol in one's own home.
	A ban on retail sales and possession by the public of fireworks will invest the law with greater clarity and make it a lot easier to prosecute those who violate it. Numerous statistics demonstrate the need for reform to current firework legislation, for which neither the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 nor the Consumer Protection Act 1987 make adequate provision.
	A ban on the retail sale of fireworks to the general public is the only way satisfactorily to address the many problems created by fireworks and to restore them to their role as a celebratory and pleasurable phenomenon. There is tremendous needand equally tremendous public supportfor this Bill, and it is with both of these things in mind that I urge Members to support it.

Robert Key: I rise to oppose the Bill. It is only a little more than a month since the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) introduced his Bill. This Bill is even more restrictive than his, but I oppose it not on grounds of liberty, of whether one should have fun or not, or of being a killjoy or a spoilsport. I oppose it simply because it will not address the fears and concerns of most people.
	I have fought for a long time on the issue of noise. The Bill that the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) will present shortly will not prevent cruelty to animalsbe they cats, dogs, horses or wildlife. It will not stop antisocial behaviour by bad neighbours or by yobs who buy fireworks, legally or illegally. It will not stop public display organisers using very loud bangs. It will not protect the elderly from loud noises or young children from being frightened or injured by fireworks. It will not stop shift workers or night workers having their precious sleep shattered.
	I shall not go into the regulations again. If hon. Members read the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Brent, North, they will see that there are a lot of them.
	I also support the position of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who I am delighted to see in her place today. She said:
	We have no plans to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public . . . The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 prohibit from sale to the public several types of noisy category 3 fireworks such as aerial shells and restrict the size of the others. We will, of course, consider any representations that are made.[Official Report, 26 November 2001; Vol.375, c. 672W.]
	To her credit, she has done that.
	The explosives industry group of the Confederation of British Industry recognises the great concern in the country and last year's unprecedented reaction to firework noise. The group has been working with the Department of Trade and Industry to see what steps the industry can take to alleviate the problem. It met the Minister on 19 December 2001 to discuss a possible action plan. One aspect of that plan was for the industry to examine the noise aspects appertaining to airbombsthe main culprit, especially in the hands of hooligansto see whether it might be possible to stop supplying them to consumers or voluntarily reduce the decibel level to conform to the forthcoming European standards.
	All those present at an emergency meeting held at the recent Harrogate toy fair, at which the main consumer fireworks suppliers exhibit, resolved to take the single tube airbomb out of circulation. That is a major step for the industry to consider because orders have already been placed and there is existing stock. The industry takes a responsible view and has been working with the Minister to find some legal backing to enforce that possibility. The DTI officials present at the Harrogate meeting undertook to find out whether what the industry wanted was within the scope of the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997. From then on it has been quite clear that the industry is willing to address the fears of the public.
	I would press the Minister on one more important point. Fireworks are imported, usually in containers, through British ports. I think that most of them come through Felixstowe. Many are sold under the counter or out of the famous white vans. Those people are not bothered about having legal, licensed explosives storage, nor do they abide by the requirements. In order to catch the dodgy importerswho may represent only 1 or 2 per cent. of the fireworks tradethe explosives industry group has proposed the introduction of a tracking system from the point of entry to the final destination of the container, so that local authorities and the police can follow up the shipments and seize those that are illegal. That is why I urge the Government to strengthen the role of the port trading standards officers and encourage the police to assist.
	The explosives industry group is fully committed to addressing the overall problem of firework noise and wishes to convince the public that responsible firework sectors take this matter very seriously. I invite the House to consider that it would be a much better proposition to work with the industry and the Government to achieve the objective that we all wantfar less noise from fireworks. People do not object to the visual display; in almost every case it is the noise. That point has been made in letter after letter. The fireworks industry action plan should be supported by the House.
	Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is even something that you could doas could hon. Members and anyone outside this place who feels strongly about the matter. If people log on to my website, robertkey.com, they will find that my online voting topic for this month is fireworks. They will see that, to date, voting is two to one in favour of my proposalto reduce the noiseagainst the proposal of the hon. Member for Enfield, North. There is an opportunity for everyone to have their say online.
	The Bill is not only restrictive but will not work. I wish that the Labour Whips would take a grip on their Back Benchers and encourage them to support the Minister in her achievements so far.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Joan Ryan, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Barry Gardiner, David Cairns, Dr. Nick Palmer, Dr. Evan Harris, Bob Russell, Sir Teddy Taylor, Ross Cranston, Siobhain McDonagh, Shona McIsaac and Tony Wright.

Fireworks

Joan Ryan accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the retail sale of fireworks and use of fireworks by the general public: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 101].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Proceeds of Crime Bill
	  
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

New Clause 7
	  
	Negligent failure to disclose: regulated sector

'(1) Where a person receives, in the course of a business in the regulated sector, information or other matter which gives him reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged in money laundering, he commits an offence under this section, unless subsections (2) or (3) below apply.
	(2) No offence is committed under this section if a disclosure within section 330(4) is made in relation to the information or other matter in question.
	(3) No offence is committed if either of the circumstances in section 330(5) applies.
	(4) Schedule 6 applies for the purposes of this section as it does for the purposes of section 330.
	(5) Section 330(6) applies for the purposes of this section.'.[Mr. Grieve.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 71, in clause 330, page 192, line 24, leave out from suspects to end of line 25.
	Amendment No. 72, in page 192, line 28, leave out from based to end of line 29.
	Government amendment No. 93.
	Amendment No. 175, in clause 332, page 194, line 11, at end insert
	'(3) A person guilty of an offence under section [negligent failure to disclose: regulated sector] shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.

Dominic Grieve: On the second day of our consideration of the Bill on Report, we come to part 7 which relates to money laundering. As the House may be aware, some controversy has arisen as regards the impact of the measure on those who will have the duty of providing information to the Assets Recovery Agencyeventually through the National Criminal Intelligence Serviceto ensure that money laundering is stopped.
	In Committee, we discussed issues relating to money laundering and to the offence of failure to disclose in the regulated sector. That debate was, in fact, the largest single debate during the whole Committee stage. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), will agree that the debate reflected the importance attached to the issueespecially by Government Back Benchers, although concerns were raised on both sides of the Committee about the existing legislation.
	Clause 330 provides that a person commits an offence if, within the regulated sector, he
	knows or suspects, or . . . has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that another person is engaged in money laundering . . . The second condition is that the information or other matter . . . on which his knowledge or suspicion is based . . . which gives reasonable grounds for such knowledge or suspicion, came to him in the course of a business in the regulated sector.
	The third condition is that he has not availed himself of the opportunity to disclose the information
	to a constable, a customs officer or a nominated officer as soon as is practicable after it comes to him.
	In Committee, serious disquiet was expressed about the fact that subsection (2)(b) will criminalise not only those who know or suspect that money laundering is taking place and who fail to pass that information to the authorities, but those who may have been merely inadvertently negligent in not noticing what a court might regard, with hindsight, as the evidence that would have allowed them to know or suspect that money laundering was taking place.
	As I said, that gave rise to serious disquiet, which a number of hon. Members expressed fairly eloquently. I shall not take up the House's time by reading out chunks of what was said in Committee, but the hon. Members for Redcar (Vera Baird) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) both expressed concern about how the proposal would work. They spoke about the risk of unfairness, and of criminalising people who normally would be regarded by any right-thinking person as innocent. Such people would not deserve the frankly draconian penalties that are attached to the offence. The maximum penalty is a possible five years' imprisonment.
	The Government's response was encapsulated in what the Minister said in response to the debate, which was that the Government
	consider that an objective test is necessary because we want the financial industry at large to be much more diligent in identifying and reporting instances of money laundering. It is already the test for the requirement to disclose information on transactions relating to terrorism. The relevant provision can be found in the provisions inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000.[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 January 2002; c. 1070.]
	It seems to me that the question of money laundering goes much further than the prevention of terrorism. Although the Minister showed considerable willingness in Committee to appreciate the concerns that had been raised, his justifications for the proposal were inadequate.
	The other issue raised in connection with the clause concerned its drafting. Clause 330(2) is unusual in that it seeks to encapsulate two separate offences. The prosecutor who has to draft an indictment will have to choose whether the accused either knew or suspected that money laundering was taking place, or had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting. I remain unconvinced that that choice will be easy to make. I suppose that we will end up with an either/or offence, and that the jury will be offered the choice of convicting on the greater or lesser charge. However, the clause is also unusual in that it makes absolutely no distinction with regard to the penalty to be imposed, except in so far as the court's discretion might apply.
	I am sure that the Minister would be the first to agree that the category of seriousness of an offence will be very different if the person who carries it out does so inadvertently or through negligence, or deliberately. However, Parliament does not seem willing to cater for that difference.
	When we discussed the matter in Committee, the proposal that I put forward was fairly straightforward. It was that we should delete from the Bill a negligence offence. The Government resisted that proposal, even though I had the impression that some Government Back-Bench Members on the Committee would not have viewed such a course of action unfavourably.

Ian Davidson: Indeed not.

Dominic Grieve: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, Indeed not. In Committee, he tended to be the great exacerbator of all offences. Given the criminality of some of the penalties to which he wanted recourse, I do not think that I can mention them on the Floor of the House.

John Taylor: In an echo of issues that were raised yesterday by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), may I ask this? Are not the really big operators in money launderingthose who commit the most serious crimeslikely to be operating outside this jurisdiction? Has my hon. Friend turned his mind to that problem? Am I right in assuming that the Bill, as and when it becomes an Act, will apply only within our domestic jurisdiction?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right that the jurisdiction is territorial, although there are clauses in the Bill that provide for international co-operation to prevent money laundering, including the exchange of information. I hope that we will have an opportunity to consider these matters further because they raise difficult issues about the propriety of exchanging information between states which may have been derived from confidential information obtained in the United Kingdom from, for instance, the Inland Revenue, through the director. My hon. Friend is also correct that those who derive benefits from the proceeds of crime in this country may well launder their money elsewhere.
	The issue that we are considering concerns the regulated sector in this countrythose in banking, finance and accountancy who are asked to carry out transactions by clients which may reveal to them a suspicion or knowledge that the client may be dealing in tainted money. The Minister knows that Opposition Membersindeed, Members on both sides of the Housefind unexceptionable the principle of requiring disclosure by the regulated sector, and, indeed, outside it, where we hope it will take place. The question is how we enforce a criminal sanction on the regulated sector to ensure compliance that does not end up being unfair. The amendments would still allow that, curiously enough. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 on their own would still allow the House, if it wanted, to remove the negligence element from the offence. They are consequential upon new clause 7.
	New clause 7 suggests the creation of a separate and distinct offence. Rather than clause 330 rolling into one the dual offence of either knowing or suspecting or having reasonable grounds for knowing or suspectingas is currently the casewe suggest that it would be sensible to amend clause 330 to remove the negligence offence and then, if the Government wish, to create a new offence which rests upon the test of negligence, but to associate it, as we suggest in amendment No. 175, with a penalty that is only financial. Let me say in passing to the MinisterI dare say that he will say it to me when he repliesthat I am aware that amendment No. 175 as it stands is not wholly adequate to fulfil our purpose. However, that in no way reduces the validity of new clause 7, which goes to the principal issue.
	If the amendment were accepted, there would be two separate and distinct offences within the regulated sector. In the first case, the offence would be committed when someone knew or suspected that money laundering was taking place and did not make disclosure. That is a serious offence, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. In the second case, the offence is similar but would be committed only when the person had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting. In those circumstances, the penalty would be only financial. In amendment No. 175, I stipulated
	level 5 on the standard scale,
	which would be 5,000. However, that could apply only in summary proceedings; if the matter were to go to the Crown court, the fine would be at large. That is the normal practice in those circumstances.
	The essential feature of the new clause is that a person could not lose their liberty as a result of committing an offence through inadvertence. That ties in closely with general principles of law in a wide field of statutes, whereby the criminalisation of individuals for acts of negligence normally attracts only a financial penalty. For example, under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 a negligent omission would generallywith very rare exceptionsattract only a financial penalty, albeit possibly a substantial one.
	I commend the new clause to the House. If it were accepted, we would still be sending out a powerful message to the financial regulated sectortoo powerful, some might argue. In the light of the proposal that I made in Committee, I have great sympathy for those who say that there should not be an offence based on negligence at all. However, assuming that hon. Members desire that such an offence should exist, the new clause would provide a valuable distinction. It would also improve the drafting of the Bill, bearing in mind the comments that were made in Committee about the unwieldiness of clause 330.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the reference in amendment No. 175 to
	a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale?
	Which standard scale is that? As the scales in England and Scotland may differ in this respect, the amendment would appear not to cover Scotland.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although, as he may have heard me say a few moments ago, I accept that amendment No. 175 does not fulfil the requirements that I should have wished of it. That is my fault, and I take full responsibility.
	This makes no difference to the general issue on which the House can vote. The question is whether there should be a financial penalty for the offence of negligence. In England and Wales, level 5 on the standard scale is 5,000 in a summary jurisdiction. If the matter were to go to the Crown court I would normally expect the fine to be at large. That is why I accept that amendment No. 175 would not fulfil the criteria.
	If we found that there was a different scale of fines north of the border, hon. Members would have to decideand inform the Minister, if he was minded to go down that roadwhether they had a view of what the fine level should be. As a great respecter of the devolution settlement in Scotland, I acknowledge that there may be a degree of variety. However, some of the issues under discussion are reserved matters and it would be odd not to have uniformity as regards penalties north and south of the border. I suspect that even the hon. Gentleman might be capable of agreeing with me about that, but I may be mistaken.

Michael Weir: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, does he accept that if, by some mischance, the House voted to accept amendment No. 175, the clause would be rendered completely meaningless as far as Scotland is concerned, because the financial aspect will not be the same there? If he does not agree with that, does he think that the matter should be referred to the Scottish Parliament for a decision on Scots criminal law?

Dominic Grieve: No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. His argument is without foundation. If hon. Members wish, they can vote on new clause 7. By doing so, they would demonstrate to the Government that they wished to have a separate, lesser penalty for negligence. The Minister, with the help of his advisers, would be in a position to tidy things upas he has done on many previous occasions. I see the Minister nodding his head approvingly. Indeed, if he were minded to accept the substance of the new clause, the normal practice would be for him to say so and I would then of course withdraw it. There is no problem in those circumstances.

Ian Davidson: rose

Dominic Grieve: I see the hon. Gentleman and, although that may mean a problem on the horizon, I will give way.

Ian Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is too generous.
	There is some merit in the point that the Scottish nationalists are making. However, it should have been made in the Committee. Had they asked to serve on it, no doubt they could have made their representations there.

Annabelle Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From reading Hansard this morning, I know that the matter that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) raises was mentioned many times yesterday and that the occupant of the Chair ruled it out of order on three separate occasions. For the sake of clarity, can we have another ruling on that, because there are many important matters to discuss and that would save everyone's time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The constitution of the Committee is not a matter for debate. We should concentrate on the new clause.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) makes a valid point, but we are going wide of the mark. Part 7 deals with money laundering. It is clear that it is intended to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, because clause 327 states:
	from England and Wales or from Scotland or from Northern Ireland,
	and clause 332 appears to impose common penalties for money laundering. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that in passing the Sewel resolution, the Scottish Parliament was content with the notion that there would be a common legislative framework for money laundering north and south of the border.

Michael Weir: That is not the point. What matters is the scale, which is different in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue his point, he should have tabled an amendment that applies to Scotland and the appropriate Scottish scale.

Ian Davidson: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) should have tabled an amendment in Committee.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman was not in Committee, but he is here and can contribute to the debate by telling us what the penalty should be.

George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman could have tabled an amendment on Report.

Dominic Grieve: He could had he bothered to read the amendment paper before he came into the Chamber. His contribution borders on the absurd. Throughout our proceedings, hon. Members on both sides of the House have done their best to improve the Bill. We might have got things wrong and we might have fallen out, but we did not descend to the nit-picking banality that characterise his interventions.

John Robertson: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment, if not his point. However, can I drag us back to the issue of negligence? Does he not accept that he is inventing an excuse or a get-out for criminals who could use negligence in their defence instead of being charged with a view to sending them to prison? They could claim that they are negligent and happily pay the money. The hon. Gentleman is giving them a cop-out that allows them to get away with it.

Dominic Grieve: Let me set out the approach that the hon. Gentleman should take. People who work in the regulated sector are for the most partthere may be terrible exceptionslikely to have been law-abiding citizens prior to the events covered by the Bill. I should be surprised if there are many chartered accountants lurking around who have strings of previous convictions.
	I would apply the same test to a criminal matter as that which applied to any other. Let us suppose that the hon. Gentleman picks up a book in a book shop and, because his mind is elsewhere and he is not concentrating, walks out clutching it. If he is prosecuted for that, he knows that provided that he satisfies the court that it was unintentional, he will be acquitted. He would probably agree that to convict someone of a serious criminal offence of dishonesty when he had no intention of being dishonest would be a parody of the legal system. In the light of such circumstances, why should a different test apply to somebody who commits a mistake by wrongly assessing the information that he receives, which would lead him to make the disclosure?
	The Minister argued that, in the regulated sector, people should be fully trained, aware of the issues, and capable of picking up the problem and shouldering the burdenjust as employers have to shoulder the health and safety burden in respect of their employees, including being criminalised for potentially negligent acts. I disagree, however, that that would provide an easy refuge. Any prosecutor who had to consider whether an offence was committed wilfully or negligently would probably have little difficulty extrapolating the answer to that question, and he could still pursue both offences and leave the jury to make up its mind.
	The point at issue is that it is wrong as a matter of principle to establish a criminal sanction with a potential maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment for somebody who may ultimately be found to have acted inadvertently, given that, with the benefit of hindsight, others might say, You ought to have realised that there was something funny about this transaction. That is an overly onerous provision.
	If Parliament passes excessively onerous legislation that appears to weigh down heavily on people, the danger is that it will lead to all manner of unintended consequences. First, it will bring the law into disrepute, and when applied the sanction itself will appear to outsiders to have little merit. Secondly, people in the financial sector will be in a state of fear and less willing to participate.
	The oddity isthe Minister will doubtless agreethat the entire money-laundering provision is dependent on the good will and honesty of the regulated sector in co-operating with implementation. The sanction exists for the rogue element who might not co-operate, but the assumption is that people will be willing to come forward and help. If, however, they are so fearful of the sanctions that they close down the hatches and do not want to co-operate, it will remain very difficult to gather the information because the regulated sector will provide none at all. That is a compelling reason why we should be particularly careful about criminalising people by imposing a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment for what will ultimately prove an offence committed purely through negligence.

Ian Davidson: In discussing negligence, the hon. Gentleman mentioned shoplifting, and I can give him an example with which Conservative MPs will doubtless be familiar. Their former colleague Jeffrey Archer was caught shoplifting suits from a shop in Canada, but was given the benefit of the doubt because he had no previous. He pleaded negligence, rather than deliberate intent, and was let off, but he proved to be a proper bad'un, didn't he?

Norman Baker: Then he copped it.

Ian Davidson: Then he copped it, as the Liberal Democrat so eloquently puts it. Given those circumstances, are we not entitled to be a trifle suspicious of the defence of negligence and innocence? After all, the people involved in financial services are not babes in arms. Most of them are well aware of the way in which they operate, and in general they are exceptionally sharp in their dealings. Surely negligence should be no defence.

Dominic Grieve: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Ultimately, a court or judge will decide in such cases. The particular matter that he mentions never came to court, so it could not be ruled on and I am unable to comment on it. A court and, potentially, a jury will have to decide whether a person has acted wilfully, negligently or with no negligence at all. The court will be able to consider those three possible outcomes. I simply want to make sure that where the court finds that there has been negligence, there will be an appropriate criminal sanction that properly reflects the gravity of the offence, and in my view that should be a fine, not a sentence of imprisonment. When the hon. Gentleman considers that argument, he may see some force in it.
	Before I sit downI do not want to take up too much time, but my remarks have taken longer than I expectedI shall make a few comments about Government amendment No. 93. The Government have attempted to go some way towards dealing with the anxiety expressed in Committee, but they have done so by tabling an amendment that will, for the purposes of negligence, decriminalise those who have not been provided by their employer with
	such training as is specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this section.
	I welcome that, but it is not sufficient.
	The amendment does not solve the problem of the excessive penalty for the negligence offence. I am concerned also that it will require the defendant in such cases to prove a negative. At the very least, it will complicate the issues. I have some anxiety about how a court will establish that a person was not provided by his employer with such training as is specified by the Secretary of State. For those reasons, I commend new clause 7 to the House and, subject to what I hear in the debate, I can tell the Minister that I am likely to press the matter to a vote, but I wait to hear from the Minister and other hon. Members how they view the matter.

Paul Stinchcombe: As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, in Committee I expressed considerable concern about both the principle and drafting of clause 330. My concern arises from the inclusion in a single subsection of two offences, the first of knowing or suspecting and the second of negligence.
	The question of principle is a simple one: do we believe that there should be a crime of negligence in the regulated sector? As a matter of principle, I do believe that. I disagree with the Tories on that point for two reasons. The first is that money laundering causes huge social problems. In my constituency, which is in leafy middle England, in Northamptonshire, there are some estates where up to 10 per cent. of young mums and dads are addicted to drugs and every single eight-year-old whom I have talked to has found needles in their garden. Those communities are ravaged by crime.
	The second reason for establishing a crime of negligence in the regulated sector is that that is where we should be making regulations. We should be regulating people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said, are not babes in arms and, moreover, are making huge amounts of money out of the business that they conduct. For both those reasons we should establish the strongest possible professional codes of conduct.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that we are seeking to remove the offence of negligence from the Bill. Is he not aware that new clause 7 would simply move the offence elsewhere?

Paul Stinchcombe: I was about to come on to that. In Committee, the Conservatives wanted to remove the offence from the Bill, but having heard some of the arguments of Labour Members, they have modified their position. However, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made it clear in his arguments that, as a matter of principle, he still has residual objections to the crime of negligence being in the Bill, and I am simply putting on record why, despite my reservations about the way in which the offence of negligence is included in this legislation, I believe, as a matter of principle, that it should be in this Bill.

David Wilshire: rose

Paul Stinchcombe: Yesterday, we did not discuss many of the clauses, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make progress so that I can deal with some points of drafting. It seems clear to me that the Government have tabled amendment No. 93 precisely to try to deal with some of the drafting points that I raised in Committee.
	In Committee, I asked three questionstwo of detail and one of more significance. First, how should the indictment be drafted? I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, but, on balance, indictments can be drafted using the either/or formulation and that issue can be resolved. Secondly, what should be the appropriate penalty for the offences? I asked that question because it seems likely that different thresholds should be established for the two types of offence, given that different culpability will be attached to them. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that, yesterday, he argued for judicial discretion. The current proposal will preserve such discretion, so the judge can reach his conclusion on what the appropriate penalty should be in the circumstances of any case, and there is some force in that argument.

Dominic Grieve: I perfectly understand the hon. Gentleman's point about judicial discretion, but most statutes provide upper and lower limitsusually upper limitsfor penalties, based on Parliament's assessment of what is correct in public policy terms. For example, no one can be sent to prison for 16 years for a single theft offence. So, surely, there is no reason why, if the House considers that a financial penalty is appropriate in cases of negligence, we should not spell that out. Does he seriously think that someone should be sent to prison for an offence of negligence that relates to this type of default?

Paul Stinchcombe: I can conceive of certain circumstances, involving gross negligence and huge sums, where such a penalty might be appropriate. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand his concerns and fully appreciate themindeed, I raised them in Committeebut I also understand the force of the Government's argument, Let us leave it to the judge to decide in any circumstances that come before him.
	The issue of greater significance in respect of the offence of negligence that I raised in CommitteeI do so again now to discuss whether the Government have dealt with it in amendment No. 93is that we provide a defence, an opt-out, for all offences under the clause as drafted: the person can say that he did not disclose the information because he had a reasonable excuse not to do so. Of course, if an individual did not appreciate that someone was a money launderer when he should have done, he would not disclose it. Prima facie, that would be the most obvious and reasonable excuse, and the individual could say, I did not do it, because I did not realise that I had to, or could have done. Otherwise, everyone would disclose all information, and that cannot be right.
	That point seems to be dealt with technically in a satisfactory manner under Government amendment No. 93, because it states that no offence has been committed if the person
	does not know or suspect
	that other circumstances apply. That meets the drafting point, but the question then arises as to whether it meets in a satisfactory way. We have to decide whether to criminalise people on the basis of their negligence when they did not know or suspect that someone was engaged in money laundering, but when they should have done because they had been provided with appropriate training.
	I am persuaded that that is the correct approach, for the very first reasons that I advanced for agreeing with the offence of negligence in principle. We are dealing with the regulated sector and people are making money out of that sector. Because it is regulated and because of the harm that can be done in estates in Glasgow and Wellingborough, we should require appropriate professionalism of those professionals. To amend clause 330 so that it will be mandatory to provide such training and to take it seriously is a very sensible way forward.

Norman Baker: Not for the first time, I rise to support the broad thrust of the comments made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). It worries me slightly to find myself agreeing with the Conservative party so muchI hope that I am not catching anything nasty in doing so. However, he raises some interesting and important points, which need to be addressed.
	First, someone's intention when an offence is committed seems to be terribly important. There is a difference between someone who deliberately sets out to commit a criminal offence, whatever it may be, and someone who commits an offence inadvertently, even if he or she should have known that that offence was being committed and should have been able to take action to stop it. In other words, they had been negligent. There is a difference between being negligent and wilfully intending to commit an offence.
	The example cited by the hon. Gentleman of shoplifting is not the most happy one. I am familiar with the example of a river pollution incident. An individual, through an error, allowed a river to be polluted, and that led to a great deal of environmental damage, the killing of many fish and consequences for innocent third parties such as other farmers, and the like.
	Although the consequences were significant for those affected and the environment, that is very different from somebody deliberately setting out to kill those fish, poison that river and affect innocent third parties. The consequences for the third parties might be the same, but the intention in the person's mind is different. The law must recognise that difference. That is why I am uncomfortable, too, with the wording of clause 330.
	Another reason is that subsection (2) is an either/or provision. It states:
	The first condition is that he
	(a) knows or suspects
	that another person is money laundering. That is of course for the prosecution to prove. However, the subsection also says that a person commits an offence if he
	has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting.
	That reverses the burden of proof and requires an individual to demonstrate that he did not have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting.

Ian Lucas: Is it not a matter for the prosecution to prove that the individual concerned had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting? The burden remains on the prosecution.

Norman Baker: I am not sure that it does so entirely. Although the burden ultimately remains on the prosecution, it could construct a case for a person having reasonable grounds, and then that person must refute it. That would be different from the way in which he would refute the condition of knowing or suspecting in subsection (2)(a). They are not quite the same thing; the burden shifts slightly.
	I welcome Government amendment No. 93, which picks up the point that people should be properly trained. Of course the regulatory sector should be properly trained, and to a high standard. It is not inappropriate for the Secretary of State to suggest the sort of training that should occur and to specify it in guidance. It would be more serious if someone had received such training and was still negligent. It is therefore right that the amendment will make the sector more regulated and the people in it more professional and properly trained. It also gives someone less of an excuse for negligence following such training.
	The fact is, however, that somebody could still be negligent thereafter. They could fail to see something or inadvertently make an error that they should not have made and that the training should have prevented them from making, and be negligent. That is very different from deliberately setting out to commit an offence or from knowing or suspecting and doing nothing about it. If those two scenarios are different in someone's mind, the penalties for them should be different. That is why it is right to consider how the penalties could be separated. I am instinctively uncomfortable criminalising a wilful act in the same way as an inadvertent one. That is the essence of new clause 7, and I therefore support its premise.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield will accept that amendment No. 175 does not work.

Alistair Carmichael: Yes it does.

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend says that it does work. It works in the sense that it would create separate penaltiesbut for crimes north and south of the border, which was not the hon. Gentleman's intention in tabling it. So, it might need some tightening up.

Dominic Grieve: From having spoken to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), my understanding is that the comments from the Scottish National party Members are wholly erroneous and that level 5 on the standard scale in Scotland is identical to level 5 on the standard scale in England and Wales. However, I accept that the amendment could do with some tightening up with respect to summary jurisdiction and the Crown court.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for that interesting intervention. I made the mistake of believing that Scottish National party Members would know what the position is in Scotland. I shall not make that mistake again.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment does not specify the scale, and that there are different scales on different sides of the border?

Norman Baker: I am informed that there is no need to specify, but I am tempted to say, as would the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), that it is a pity that that was not raised in Committee, but it might be inappropriate to make that comment in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).
	There is a serious issue relating to a general point that I made throughout Committee. The Government have the best intentions and want to make sure that the Mr. Bigs of this world who commit such acts are caught and that loopholes are closed. No one disagrees with those aims. However, as we proceed we must be careful to ensure that in catching the guilty, we do not accidentally entrap the innocent.

Vera Baird: As has been said, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), expressed disquiet in Committee about the whole notion of criminality by negligence, but I did so in a context different from the one in which my hon. Friend has set the issue today.
	My hon. Friend refers to the regulated sector as though it were necessarily full of high-powered and highly trained people. On many occasions that will be so, but the schedule that defines the regulated sector is broad enough to include and specify building societies and credit unions. In building societies, transactions can flash across the screen before the eyes of people who may not be highly trained and may work part-time and who therefore do not fall within the category of persons whom we would regard as being capable of being complicit in money laundering. I worry about such people.
	Far more do I worry about volunteers in Redcar, Grangetown, South Bank and other places in my constituency where there are credit unions. Those people run those credit unions on a wholly voluntary basis. Although I well appreciate that the answer might come back that little money is likely to be laundered through a credit union in Grangetown, the principle is the same: such people, who are not high-powered workers, will be in danger of being prosecuted for negligence. It is in that context that I expressed my disquiet, which I will not repeat at length today.
	Throughout, the issue has been raised whether criminality should result from inadvertence and error. I merely mention in headline terms that the people whom we will be capable of criminalising by mistake include those whose child has kept them awake all night, so that they have not had much sleep; those who are worried about something, or who are not paying much attention and letting the job tick over; and those who have been divorced or bereaved.
	We are all aware of the many reasons why someone might not pay proper attention to their job for a while, but some police officer, rightly, astutely and observantly, might come along later and say to such a person, You should have seen that, with the result that that person is liable to the penalties that we have discussed. It is a less sympathetic example, but it is not uncommon for someone simply to make a mistake because they have had a bad day, and without real justification. Such people, too, may be criminalised. I am greatly concerned.
	I am grateful for Government amendment No. 93. Another category of persons about whom I was concerned in Committee was learners, who might exercise all the diligence that they can but still fall below a reasonable standard and so be criminalised. The amendment brings into play the defence of lack of training. That helps and I am grateful for it. It provides evidence that a good deal of thought has been applied to the arguments advanced in Committee. That is proper, but generous as well.
	Clearly, negligence in one form or another as a basis of criminality will remain in the Bill. NCIS says that that is important, and in Committee the Minister quoted NCIS's view that professionals have facilitated money laundering but claimed that they had no suspicion or knowledge. If it is to remain in the Bill, I ask that three issues be considered again in more depth than the evidence suggests has been the case up to now. I, too, raised an issue of drafting that was not dissimilar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. If one considers closely the drafting of clause 330(2)(b), one sees that it is an offence if a person does not disclose when he has
	reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged in money laundering.
	The point that everyone is making is that, even though such reasonable grounds exist, that person may not know or suspect but is still guilty.
	As my hon. Friend also said, the defence in subsection (5) is that
	a person does not commit an offence if he has a reasonable excuse for not disclosing the information or other matter.
	As he said, the reasonable excuse ought to be, I didn't know it, so I couldn't disclose it. However, that is not a defence because the offence still exists under subsection (2)(b), even if the person involved did not know about it. A defence of having a reasonable excuse for not knowing or suspecting is therefore necessary. That would cover a situation in which a person had been distracted, perhaps because his child was ill or for another reason that I have given as an example.
	Drafting such a provision might be over-elaborate. Is the Minister therefore prepared to confirm to the House that the defence in clause 330(5)(a) of a reasonable excuse is intended to cover a person who simply did not know that there was anything to report, and that the reason the person was negligent in not knowing about it is one of the things that would offer a reasonable excuse? Will he confirm that the clause is big enough to cover that situation?

Bob Ainsworth: As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, we discussed this matter in Committee at length. As he has graciously acknowledged, I have tried to pick up some of the points of concern. My reading of clause 330(5)the legal mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) may be sharper than mineis that it does not confine itself to not disclosing and refers to having a reasonable excuse for not disclosing. That would apply to a situation in which a person did not disclose because he did not know, and it would equally apply to a situation in which a person should have known but did not disclose in any case. It would cover both situations.

Vera Baird: If my hon. Friend is satisfied, I shall accept his assurances and not press the point. However, I am sure that the original drafting of the clause contains a non-link between the aspects that I have set out. I am nevertheless reassured and grateful to my hon. Friend.
	I want to mention two more points. One of those has already been referred to extensivelythat it would be wise to have two separate offences. I shall not repeat all the reasons that have been put forward for that, but there is an additionalif not hugeone. It is inappropriate that a person who is convicted of an offence that is the result of negligence, which could be seen as a disciplinary offence, should be labelled with the same criminal conviction as a person who has deliberately laundered money. Fair labellinga well-known sociological conceptrequires that there should be two charges so that a person who has had a bad night and missed a trick is not categorised by his previous convictions as a serious money launderer when he makes subsequent job applications. I therefore add my support to the proposal to have two offences.
	In response to my suggestion in Committee that cases of negligence could be dealt with adequately as internal disciplinary matters, my hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to say:
	In many cases, they could.
	However, he went on to say:
	there are organisations in which there is neither the will nor the ability to bear down.[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 January 2002; c. 1115.]
	I appreciate why he made that point, but there will have to be a code of practice for prosecutions brought under the Bill. Will he therefore consider including in the code of practice the provision that no prosecution for negligent non-disclosure should be brought until it has been considered whether the matter can be met and will be met by internal disciplinary mechanisms? I invite him to consider the three points that I have made.

David Ruffley: To return to the analogy with shoplifting, I am reminded of something that a legal jurist once said to me. He said that we have come across cases where people are so confused that they walk out of a shop without paying for an item, but they are never so confused that they pay for it twice. We are in the territory of legalistic definitions and passes being sold. We have subjective tests, and they were discussed in Committee; we also have an objective test, and I am afraid that we are stuck with it.
	I support the observation of the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) that there should be a distinction between offences whereby the negligent failure to disclose should be punished by a fine not exceeding level 5 and those committed by someone who clearly should have known that money laundering was going on and, knowing that it was going on, failed to take the appropriate action. That distinction should be flagged up clearly for the reasons that she set out. However, it appears that someone who has had a bad night or a bad day will not be treated in a proportionate fashion by the legal and sentencing system in this country.
	I am particularly concerned by clause 330(5). The Minister has just referred to that subsection in an intervention, so will he explain whether, when a legal adviser claims privilege, that adviser must also have a reasonable excuse for not disclosing information? I do not understand what such a reasonable excuse might be. It appears as though the legs are being cut from underneath the privileged defence if the type of reasonable excuse must be of the type expected elsewhere in the clause. I am not at all clear how privilege will operate in that respect. It may be my lack of acutenesswhich is uncharacteristic, I hasten to addso perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
	The hon. Member for Redcar also made an excellent point about training. The level of training expected has not been made clear in the Bill or in any of the Minister's comments that I have heard. We all know that the British Bankers Association, among many other distinguished bodies, has training days and training courses, but they are for employees of a certain level in a banking or financial services institution. That is fine, but unless we are given a clearer idea of the sort of accredited courses that will be run, we shall remain in the dark. For that reason, Government amendment No. 93 is defective, and this debate is important in flushing out what exactly Ministers have in mind.
	The Secretary of State will draw up regulations and prescribe certain forms of training so, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Redcar outlined, I hope that it will be clear what level of functionary will be involved. Will it be Tracey or Wendy in back office accounts or will it be Alan or someone else? Will it be someone with no interest in financial services? Perhaps they will come across the issue only when it flashes across their computer screens.
	The Minister may smirk, but I characterise the issue in that way to make my point forcefully. We are talking not about managing directors of banks, or even branch managers of banks; we are talking about back-office staff. Instead of grinning, perhaps the Minister will tell us what comfort he will give us on this point and on that raised by the hon. Lady.

Annabelle Ewing: I understand that to a considerable extent those who work in the financial services sector are already subject to stringent requirements and reporting duties. It may be that the proposed legislation will beef up the relevant provisions to an extent.
	The hon. Gentleman cites back-office staff. Surely the first people in a financial institution who would be well aware of their duties under existing money-laundering legislation would be back-office staff.

David Ruffley: The hon. Lady states the obvious, but is she suggesting that every employee at every branch, however small it might be, in every village, market town, town or cityfor example, every member of the Natwest bank or the Halifaxwill receive the appropriate training? If she is, I fear that she has probably missed the point.
	It is clear that people may slip through the net, and that is the point that I am making. It is the point that the hon. Lady made powerfully. She talked about credit unions and volunteers. The clause could easily catch such individuals. The Minister is shaking his head. If he thinks that we are wrong and that the credit union point is wrong, he will be able to say so. I am sure that he would want to do so. It is a point that needs answering.
	Training has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We are invited to believe that individuals who want to pray in aid the defence set up by Government amendment No. 93 will have to prove a negative. I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain how individuals might easily and conveniently do that. The amendment does not give us any clue how that process might work. I would appreciate the hon. Gentleman's answer to that question.

John Robertson: I thought that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was churlish when he attacked the Scottish nationalists. After all, three SNP Members have been in the Chamber for two days in a row, and that must be a record.
	I am not a lawyer. I speak on behalf of victims who cannot speak for themselves. These are people who have already passed on and others who are drugged up to the eyeballs and cannot speak for themselves, and the families whom tried to support these people. These are the people whom I try to represent.
	New clause 7 deals with a grey area, and in my opinion the purpose behind it is to try to cloud the issue. I feel that we are trying to introduce lesser sentences for those who deserve to be sentenced correctly. Clause 330 covers the rights of individuals, especially those who come into contact with those who have a criminal life style.
	My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office and I visited the Drug Enforcement Agency in Scotland. We had a long and frank discussion with representatives of it. It was amazing to me how they mirrored the discussion that took place when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) visited Strathclyde police force. I commend the deputy chief constable, Graham Pearson. It was said that part of the problem rested with lawyers and others. That was a reference to those in the regulatory area. If they are part of the problem, they are the people on whom we want to focus, especially in terms of the clauses that we are considering.
	Having read amendments Nos. 71 and 72, it strikes me that they are an attempt to introduce as a defence the claim, I didn't know. I couldn't tell. That would take us down the road of a nice little fine and the person charged getting off.
	Clause 330(3) states:
	The second condition is that the information or other matter
	(a) on which his knowledge or suspicion is based, or
	(b) which gives reasonable grounds for such knowledge or suspicion,
	came to him in the course of a business in the regulated sector.
	Amendment No. 72 would delete the words
	or which gives reasonable grounds for such knowledge or suspicion.

Dominic Grieve: I understand why the hon. Gentleman should come to that conclusion. The amendment that he has just read out is similar to the one that was tabled in Committee, but as I explained to the House, it was linked to new clause 7. I would propose that those deletions should be made only if new clause 7 were incorporated, in which case there would still be an offence of negligence, but in the manner that I described, in a separate clause and with a separate penalty.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear that. However, as was said on many occasions in Committee, the amendments give the impression that the Opposition are the criminal's friend.
	Reference has been made to a level 5 sentence, which is a maximum fine of 5,000. I should have thought that the Opposition, especially the Conservative party, with its law and order ethics, would want a punishment to fit the crime. A maximum 5,000 fine for someone who earns treble that in a week hardly seems a sufficient sentence for that person, particularly if the case involved severe negligence or fell just short of an offence having knowingly been committed.

Alistair Carmichael: With regard to the maximum sentence of a 5,000 fine, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that that would apply in summary procedure which, by definition, applies only to the less serious offences? If it is appropriate as the maximum fine for any other offence on summary procedure, it must be appropriate for this offence on summary procedure. If it were on solemn procedure, an unlimited fine would be applicable.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman and bow to his superior knowledge in matters of law. As I said, I am not a lawyer. I am speaking on behalf of the victims, not the Law Society. A fine of 5,000 is not enough. The sentence should be left to the judge's discretion and should match the crime.

Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there ought to be a difference in the penalty applied to someone who wilfully commits an offence and to someone who inadvertently commits the same offence?

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do not see his point. The case will be heard, evidence will be taken, and the judge and jury will determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Depending on the severity of the offence, the judge will hand down a sentence to match the error of that person's ways.
	In conclusion, the debate in Committee on clause 330 left me bewildered. We spent an inordinate amount of time on the matter, during which time I wrote myself a note, which states, I have given up the will to live. I see that we are going through the same debate again.

David Wilshire: If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) had been more willing to give way, it might have been unnecessary for me to speak. The thought of people giving up the will to live was also something of an invitation for me to contribute.
	Quite a while ago, I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Wellingborough when he dismissed the view that the Opposition seek not to delete the offence of negligence, but to provide for it in a different way. After doing so, he made two observations. First, he said that he would not give way again because there would be no time to debate other matters if he did so. I must respond that it is not Opposition Members who determine guillotines, but Labour Members. If there is not enough time for him to do what he believes needs to be done, he should address his views to his Front Bench rather than complain to us. Secondly, he implied that it did not matter what we were proposing now, but that he held against us permanently the fact that we had made the same proposal before. That is very unfortunate. The Committee's proceedings were marked by the fact that the Government often listened to what Opposition Members said, accepted that we had made very good points and changed their mind. If he can support his own Government when they change their mind, he should not criticise us when the force of his argument helps us along.

Paul Stinchcombe: I welcome the U-turn on the Tory Benches, but I was worried that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) seemed to be slipping back and suggesting that, despite the Opposition's grudging acceptance of an offence of negligence, there were still objections in principle.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) advanced the entire argument, but the fact remains that, like the Minister, we are sometimes prepared to say that we have heard and accepted what has been said. Just as I have thanked the Minister on a number of occasions for changing his mind and listening to what we say, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will manage to thank ushe can do so after the debate if not nowfor behaving just as his own Minister has. I shall leave the matter there.
	The process of 39 Committee sittings has begun to get me thinking sometimes like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson); I noticed a while ago that he was busily writing and I hope that I am not about to pinch his speech off him. I am not so sure that there should be such universal enthusiasm among Labour Members for Government amendment No. 93. I learned in Committee that if one thinks long enough about anything that is proposed in an amendment to this Bill, one will see it as a loophole. None the less, I invite him, the Minister and other Labour Members who want to support their Front Bench to ask themselves whether Government amendment No. 93 can be used as a loophole.
	I am an unscrupulous employer. [Laughter.] I am not, but let us assume that I am such an employer for the purposes of this argument and that I decide to become involved in money laundering, but do not want the powers of the Bill to affect me. The Government are now saying that if an employee has not been properly trained, he has a defence. Let us imagine that, as an unscrupulous employer, I ensure that some of my employees who are party to what is happening are not trained. I then let them do what is necessary.

Mark Field: I think that I understand where my hon. Friend is leading the argument. Should not we be greatly concerned that, as he says, if the new clause is agreed, an untrained individual will not be liable, so the full force of the agency will be directed at the unscrupulous boss? That will lead to an enormous feeding frenzy for the lawyers who are involved in trying to unravel this rather ill-thought-through provision.

David Wilshire: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure whether the unscrupulous boss would be prosecuted under the Bill or any other legislation for aiding and abettingor whatever the technical phrase would bean employee.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman and hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) served on the Committee and should be aware that employers in the regulated sector are required to train their employees. I think that he knows that.

David Wilshire: I am sure that there is an obligation to give training, but whether the training is satisfactory remains to be seen. That would be a matter for debate, and could provide the loophole.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said that he thought he could see where the argument was going. Perhaps he saw that I was trying to persuade the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok and others to vote against their own Government. That is where the argument is going. The greatest advocate of not watering down the Bill is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, and I look forward to hearing what he will say after hearing the Minister trying to water it down.
	The Government's proposal could indeed be seen as a loophole. An employee who had deliberately not been given satisfactory training would be provided with an excuse, and could launder money to his heart's content. I am sure that that is not what the Minister intends, but I think that it is what he is about to do.

Ian Lucas: In the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman, would not the unscrupulous employer have
	reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person,
	namely the employee, was engaged in money laundering? He would therefore be committing an offence himself.

David Wilshire: That may be so, but the person actually doing the laundering would be given an excuse. I am sure that the unscrupulous could find a way of protecting the proceeds of crime by shunting it down the line. I hope that I have said enough to cause Labour Members to have serious doubts about the loophole that is being proposed.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) expressed concern about lesser sentences and punishments, as though, again, we were seeking to water the Bill down. I think that he has got the wrong end of the stick. I realise that a Member whose constituency has a serious drug problem will always want the guilty to suffer the maximum penalty, but to advance that argument is to misunderstand the point that we are making.
	Let us say, for the purposes of my own argument, that I accept a maximum sentence of five years for the negligent offender. Let us not get into a discussion about whether we want to water that down. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that if five years is adequate for negligence, we should consider an even longer term for deliberate offenders. That is the only distinction that Conservative Members seek to draw: that there are two different crimes, one far worse than the other, and that one should attract a more severe punishment than the other.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right. I would increase the sentence for deliberate offenders, but I would not lower it for those who had been negligent.

David Wilshire: Then the hon. Gentleman accepts our argument. The fact that he does not like our solution is one thing, but it is another thing to suggest, as was suggested in Committee, that we are the friends of the criminals because we want to dilute the Bill. However, he has at last accepted that that is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to achieve justice and fairness. If he thinks that five years is adequate for the negligence offence, he should have tabled an amendment to increase the sentence for the deliberate offence.
	If I have helped Labour Members to understand that even their own Government can create loopholes, and if I can persuade just one Labour Member that we are not the criminal's friend and that we are talking a great deal of common sense, my speech has been well worth while.

Ian Davidson: My speech follows that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) by coincidence; he did not provoke me into speaking. I nevertheless think it worth repeating some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) about the framework of our discussions. I think that the Tories were a disgrace in Committee, and are a disgrace today. I still believe that they are weak on pursuing the collaborators of criminals.
	Criminals need professional advisers, and I consider those advisers as bad as, if not worse than, some of the criminals themselves. Severe action should be taken against them. The Conservatives' form can be held against them in that regard. The nationalists will not recall this because they were not present, but those of us who were in the Committee noted the Conservatives' view that negligence should be a complete, absolute, utter, total defence. They believe that it should enable people to get off everything altogether. There is a difference, however, between the adjustments that the Government have made and the adjustments that the Conservatives suggest that they have made. We have retained our principles while being prepared to make tactical changes, which is why I am prepared to accept what Ministers are proposing.
	This is not a change in principle by the Conservatives. I believe that they are still in favour, in principle, of having negligence as a defence, but have been forced by political circumstance to modify that position. They are, therefore, putting forward the weakest suggestion that they can. It is interesting that we have heard from a variety of sources about the not trained, bad night defence for negligence.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, one of the most powerful speeches against the negligence defence came from one of his Back-Bench colleagues. It therefore strikes me as odd that the change to which we have adjusted in the spirit of conciliation should be greeted with his particular brand of opprobrium.

Ian Davidson: Those on my side of the Committee who are now prepared to support a different position did not perhaps fully appreciate the majesty of the Government's position at that stage. They have now recognised that there are improvements within the same set of principles. I suspect that the Conservatives have retained the principle of wishing to water down this measure entirely.
	Let me return to the not trained, bad night defence. There is an offence of careless driving; there is also an offence of negligent driving, worded in various ways. People can be found guilty of manslaughter through careless driving. Negligence is not a defence in those circumstances; nor should it be. If someone killed other people or caused horrendous consequences as a result of carelessness while flying a plane or driving a train, we would not say, That's all right; it was just negligence. It's a terrible shame, but we'll let them off. In those circumstances, negligence should not be a defence.

Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a difference between manslaughter and murder?

Ian Davidson: Yes, but I take the view that manslaughter should not be excused on the ground of negligence. Negligence is, in itself, a culpable offence and ought to be subject to penalties. I accept that there will be some circumstances in which there is genuine negligence, but I believe that a defence of negligence would be argued in more cases than would be justified.
	I want clarification from the Opposition on the level of penalties in cases of negligence. Their amendment No. 175 proposes that a person shall be
	liable to a fine not exceeding level 5.
	Notwithstanding the points that the nationalists have madewhich would have been better made in Committeethat would amount to 5,000 or so, and would apply to new clause 7 if it were agreed.
	I and others referred in Committee to the scale of money laundering arising, for example, from the Nigerian incidents, in which billions of pounds were at stake. If someone involved in that exercise admitted negligence, perhaps on a plea bargain, would that mean that the maximum penalty to which they would be liable would be only 5,000?

Dominic Grieve: I explained earlierI am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not understand methat level 5 on the standard scale is for summary jurisdiction only. It is the maximum fine that can be imposed in a magistrates court on the standard scale. There is, therefore, no diminution of the force of summary jurisdiction in relation to other offences in the Bill. If the matter were to go the Crown court, however, the fine would be at large; it could be up to any level.

Ian Davidson: I very much welcome that sign of adjustment from the Conservatives. They were giving the impression that they were in favour of minimising the penalties. I am reminded of prostitutes in Glasgow who consider fines a business expense. I can envisage lawyers, accountants and others regarding a small fine of 5,000 as simply a business expense, so the penalty needs to be a great deal higher. No doubt accountants would write it off against tax.
	I now turn to credit unions and the like. The idea that someone would come into a credit union with a plastic bag containing 500,000 and say, I would like to lodge this. and the people at the credit union would not think, There's something a trifle peculiar going on here, leaves me cold. I take a similar view of the excuse that has often been mentioned of the baby crying.

Vera Baird: It is surely my hon. Friend who has talked not only about getting the Mr. Bigs, but about taking the heat out of the drugs industry and other evils at whatever level it occurs. No one was seriously suggesting high-level trade through a credit union, but the money that goes through credit unions in Redcar represents people's maximum savings and can equally represent big gains from drugs. The people who work in credit unions are subject to the same rules as the high fliers whom my hon. Friend detests so much and he will know that there are credit unions in Pollok, too.

Ian Davidson: Indeed there are, and I can tell my hon. Friend that if a Nigerian chief turned up with an address in Arden and a plastic bag with 2,000, never mind 2 billion, they would immediately be suspicious. So I have no qualms about the way in which the provision will apply to credit unions.
	I find the bad night defence laughable, however. The idea that somebody had a bad nightthe usual sympathetic context is that the baby kept them awake, though in financial circles it is more likely that they were out spending several thousand pounds on bottles of wineand that the next day, because they had a sore head, they did not notice 500,000 flitting across the screen is laughable. We have to expect a certain degree of competence from people in the banking and financial sectors. Are we seriously expected to believe that the whole future of the British economy rests on the competence of the staff we love so dearly, yet the same staff could quite easily mislay the odd 500,000 as it flits across the screen? I think not. If we accepted that, the felons would pay for the nights out so that the excuse could be used.
	We asked earlier how we could discover what went through people's minds when all these transactions were taking place. I have a pretty good idea of what is in the minds of accountants, lawyers, bankers and others who handle these ill-gotten gains. It is money, money, money. They do it for the money. We should be in no doubt whatsoever about it. We would be much better served in the Houseand we would have been in Committeeif the Conservatives were prepared to accept that some people involved in those industries are corrupt, dishonest and guilty of offences. Instead, the Conservatives adopted the stonewall defence of trying to pretend that the problem did not exist.
	I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)I apologise to him if I have misunderstood himis in favour of collaborators of crime going to prison for substantial periods if they are caught. That is his position, as I understand it. Perhaps he is not quite as soft on crime as I previously understood him to be.
	Finally, let me make two points

Michael Weir: Finally?

Ian Davidson: Yes, about 40 per cent.
	I was struck by the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is no longer in his place, that if the regime were made too tough, people would launder their money elsewhere. That seemed to be his general point. In those circumstances, we have two alternatives. The first is to reduce our standards so as to attract such trade; the second, more reputable, option is to try to raise standards elsewhere in the world. The fact that the introduction of the highest possible standards might lose us some business is no reason whatever for allowing our standards to be watered down.
	Finally finally, I have made my entire contribution without mentioning more than twice the absence of Scottish National party Members from the Committee. That must be a record.

Bob Ainsworth: As the House seems content to spend the whole of this part of the debate discussing one group of amendments, I wanted to intervene before we ran out of time.
	I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the amendments might not be perfectly drafted and that they are meant to be read as a whole. I do not want to descend into any nit-picking arguments about that; rather, I want to address the major issue that he has brought to the House, which we also discussed at great length in the Standing Committee.
	The effect of the amendments taken together would be to split the failure to disclose offence into two separate offences. There would be different tests for each offence and a lower penalty for someone charged with having reasonable grounds to know or suspectbut not with actually knowing or suspectingthat money laundering was going on and thus needed to be disclosed.
	The negligence test is one of the key proposals in the Bill. It reflects the Government's commitment to strong anti-money-laundering measures across the United Kingdom. Such measures, including the new negligence test, are fully justified against the background of several money-laundering cases that have taken place in the City and which were not reported to law enforcement. It is in the interests of the City and its financial reputation that we demand the highest standards of diligence.
	In Committee, I gave a commitment that I would look again into the drafting to see whether there was any merit in having two different offencesthe issue that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has raised again today. I considered the matter at great length with officials in the Department, but I remain of the opinion that the negligence test would be most effective in a single offence, as currently drafted.
	An abundance of legal ability was available to me from members of the Committee. Some hon. Members suggested that the handling of the indictment could be strange and difficult. However, it has been explained to me that the indictment can be handled even if the offence contains all three mens rea elements of knowing, suspecting and having reasonable grounds to suspect. Everything that has been said in the debate confirms my belief that the indictment can be dealt with in that way.
	An indictment may contain only one offence or more than one mental element. There is no difficulty in specifying both in the indictment. There are precedents elsewhere, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than me.
	The standard indictment for rape is that the defendant knew that the victim did not consent, or was reckless as to whether she did. In criminal damage, the indictment states that the defendant damaged property criminally with intent, or was reckless as to whether it would be damaged. The same situation applies in various circumstances. Courts and prosecuting agencies are able to deal with them in drawing up indictments.

Vera Baird: I am concerned about the analogy with rape. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the same level of criminality is probably involved when a man rapes a woman recklessly and does not give a damn about whether she says yes or no, and when a man rapes a woman knowing that she has not said yes? It would therefore be perfectly straightforward to charge the cases as alternative states of mind. We are talking in the Bill about two levels of criminality. Is it not difficult to see how a jury could inform a judge about the level of criminality of which it had found a person guilty?

Bob Ainsworth: I was trying to talk about the mental element of an offence. I think that my hon. Friend accepts that that is dealt with elsewhere.
	I shall move on to how the matter will be dealt with in sentencing. As I said, the indictment could be particularised, or it could state that the defendant knew or suspected, or had reasonable grounds to know or suspect. Those are the three mental elements, but a judge might impose a sentence on the basis that only negligence had been established. That would depend on the evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) noted, we are effectively leaving it to the discretion of the courts to decide, as they will be able to take account of the evidence provided.
	The key argument against splitting the offence is that the prosecution would then have to decide whether to risk basing an indictment on knowledge, or suspicion. That is the problem with the current regimeit is very difficult to prove subjective knowledge. It is highly likely that prosecutors would go for the lesser offence if the proposed single offence were split, as the offence containing the subjective tests would be used only rarely, if at all.

Dominic Grieve: I confess that I do not see that. The new clause is drafted in a way that allows indictments to include alternative counts. For instance, a prosecutor may say to a jury, Our view is that the accused acted wilfully. However, if you conclude that he did not act wilfully, we shall say that the evidence is that he acted negligently. So I simply do not see the problem with having two separate offences. Both can appear as two counts on the same indictment.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that there is a major difficulty with the Bill as drafted. It would be far more problematic to require the prosecutor to decide at the outset how to frame an indictment, and to make him choose then between the objective and the subjective test. That would lead to the power being under-used. It certainly would not lead to what is central to the argumenta step change in the quality of staff in the regulated sector in this country, and the way in which that sector operates with regard to money laundering. I contend that history shows that that step change is badly needed.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend accept that the real difficulty with the new clause is that it would lead to alternative charges being placed on the indictment, and that the inevitable result would be plea bargaining? The less serious offence would regularly be accepted, especially if it involved only the imposition of a financial penalty.

Bob Ainsworth: I have said that that would be the dilemma facing the prosecutor. I believe that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has accepted that that is what would happen, and that that is what he wants.

Alistair Carmichael: Why does the Minister insist that the prosecutor should make the decision? Surely such a decision is best made by the jury after hearing all the evidence given in court under oath.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the jury can do precisely that under the Bill as it stands. The mental elements can be taken into account by the court and by the judge in sentencing. There is not a problem in that respect given the way in which the Bill is structured.
	As far as the sentence is concerned, the judge will weigh up the case and form a view about the mental element and take that into account when deciding the level of penalty.

Vera Baird: Is not the difficulty about the judge deciding the level of criminality so that he can impose the penalty that the jury might decide that the accused knowingly committed an offence while the judge sentenced him only for doing so negligently, or the other way around?

Bob Ainsworth: I think that the courts are capable of dealing with this offence in the way that the Bill provides, and I believe that my hon. Friend agrees. They can decide on the element of mens rea present in the offence and take account of that when a sentence is imposed. I do not think that it is beyond the capacity of the courts to do that.
	We were asked to look at defences. Representations have been made to everyone involved in the Bill about the impact that the offence could have on junior staff. Concern was expressed that people might not know or suspect that money laundering was taking place because they had not had the necessary training. There is an obligation to provide training for staff, and a company could be prosecuted for not doing so. We thought that that was adequate to deal with the situation, but because of concerns that have been raised both in the House and by organisations making representations to us, we brought forward Government amendment No. 93 to cover the situation and provide the defence that no training was given. The measure was discussed extensively in Committee.
	Government amendment No. 93 will accordingly provide the defence that the employer had not provided staff with the relevant training. The training that we have in mind is that which all employers are required to provide to their employees by reason of regulation 5 of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993. We intend to use an order-making power to enable the Secretary of State to specify the kind of training that will apply.
	As well as giving us an insight into some of his deeper thoughts about whether Traceys and Wendys could ever be thought of as company managing directors, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) asked whether there was a problem with clause 330(5). He wanted to know that the provision in paragraph (b) was not dependent on that in paragraph (a). It is not. A professional legal adviser would be protected and would not have to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for not disclosing information.

Norman Baker: Doubtless the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) thought that Tracey was a man. Tracey is a man's name and that is why the hon. Gentleman believed that he might be a managing director.
	We have discussed what constitutes a reasonable excuse under clause 330(5)(a). The hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) suggested earlier that a bad day or a problem with one's children might constitute such an excuse. I hope that I do not misrepresent her. Do such reasons constitute a reasonable excuse? If not, will the Minister give examples of things that might qualify?

Bob Ainsworth: We went over that ground in Committee, and I was about to deal with the points that my hon. Friend raised.

David Ruffley: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: No. I have not managed to respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) yet. I cannot take another until I have done that. I do not want to stack up interventions, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds provokes me to do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar sought some assurances about clause 330(5)(a). The offence for which the clause provides applies both when the person knows and when the person has reasonable grounds for knowing. Subsection (5)(a) provides a defence of a reasonable excuse for not disclosing. The examples that my hon. Friend gave would be raised with the prosecutor. She gave an amusing example of a police officer behaving obtusely or unreasonably, but the issues that she raised could be considered by the prosecuting authorities and accepted as reasonable excuses if they believed that they crossed the requisite threshold.
	My hon. Friend also asked whether we could consider a code of practice. I am happy to continue the discussion with her if she wants to pursue the matter. However, I fear that introducing such a code could entail problems; it might be deemed to interfere with the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS needs to decide whether to prosecute, taking all the facts of the case into consideration; it would not necessarily want to be bound by a code of practice that was imposed on it.

David Ruffley: It is kind of the Minister to give way. I cannot yet read the record, so he must correct me if I am wrong, but in his earlier response to points about clause 330(5) he appeared to suggest that a person did not commit an offence under the provision if paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) applied. However, the clause provides that paragraphs (a) and (b) must be taken into account.
	I must also repeat an earlier question: what constitutes a reasonable excuse?

Bob Ainsworth: The court would decide what constituted a reasonable excuse. I was explaining that in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. The prosecuting authorities will decide whether to take a case forward. If they decide to do so, the court will determine whether the excuse is reasonable. We are not trying to fetter the court.
	The word and does not link paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5). The word or is implied, although I accept that it is not stated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he reads the subsection carefully, or is implied. The professional legal adviser does not therefore have to be covered by paragraph (a). HeI should emphasise he or she because of the hon. Gentleman's difficultiesdoes not need the reasonable excuse for which paragraph (a) provides.

David Ruffley: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. We are short of time, other hon. Members wish to speak, and we need to discuss other amendments before 6.7 pm. I hope that Government amendment No. 93 makes the clause acceptable to hon. Members, and I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.

Alistair Carmichael: I intended to make only one narrow point in an intervention, but I have become increasingly irritated as the debate has progressed and I now have a number of issues to raise. I shall, however, try to give hon. Members a lesson in brevity in so doing and I hope that it is well taken.

Ian Davidson: Get on with it.

Alistair Carmichael: That is rich coming from the hon. Gentleman.
	On new clause 7 and the bad night defence, which at first I thought was a reference to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I declare an interest as the father of an 11-month-old son who is cutting his first set of teeth. The hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made her point well. The Minister yesterday invited us to sympathise with the two families living next door to each other in a terraced street, one of which was hard-working and strugglingperhaps failingto make their mortgage payments. Overnight, his attitude has changed and it seems that those are the very people he is trying to persecute. The Minister and Labour Members must accept that a substantial number of ordinary hard-working low-grade employees are going to be caught by the Bill's provisions, and there is an inequity in that. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) drew parallels with careless driving. I do not want to get into that except to place it on the record that his points are absolute mince.
	Some hon. Members mentioned alternative verdicts. That is complex. There are various ways in which alternative verdicts can be returned. If knowingly and negligently are alternatives in the same offence, a sheriff and possibly a jury can convict under deletion. I accept that that is open to them. However, the Minister must be aware that it is sometimes difficult to get a jury to convict under deletion. Instead, we get a conviction for the whole offence. As the hon. Member for Redcar said, that can result from a misunderstanding between the jury and the judge over conviction and sentence. There is much to commend in the prosecutor having the option open to draft the indictment with the negligence offence as an alternative.
	Let me deal with the comments that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made on amendment No. 175. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was mistaken when he was uncharacteristically soft on the Scottish National party. The amendment states that someone
	guilty of an offence under section
	whatever it is to be
	shall be liable to a fine
	that is a term of art known to Scots law
	not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	The hon. Member for Angus should know that level 5 on the standard scale is a term of art that is to be found in chapter 46 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. He said that the standard scale is not specified. That is not necessary in any piece of legislation that I have come across in practice and I see no reason why it is necessary in this regard.

Michael Weir: rose

Alistair Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman has something new to say, I shall give way.

Michael Weir: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) did not know the separate scales. The Bill does not specify the scale, and it can contain differences. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) makes a point about the Committee. Let me explain that amendment No. 175 is a Tory amendment. I support the Bill as agreed by the Scottish Parliament under the Sewel motion. Why should I table an amendment in the terms of amendment No. 175 in Committee or anywhere else?

Alistair Carmichael: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has nothing new to say. Section 225(1) of the 1995 Act refers to the standard scale in inverted commas. It is a term of art known to Scots law; it should even be known to a solicitor from Angus. I do not understand his problem.

Mark Field: I, too, shall be brief.
	I accept that it is in the interests of the City of London that it is not seen as a soft touch for money laundering. I had intended to speak at some length on the money laundering provisions, but I obviously do not have enough time to do so. Instead, I shall make a brief point on over-regulation in the broader sense, which has the effect of exporting jobs. That has been the history of the City of London and all other financial centres in the post-war era. One reason why the Eurobond market is firmly in London is because of strict regulation in New York by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the 1960s and beyond. We should all remember that important lesson when we propose regulations.
	On new clause 7, a multitude of hon. Members spoke about the failure to disclose. When we were in Committee, it was understood that we should distinguish between the regulated and the non-regulated sectors, which goes to the heart of the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). I am worried, however, by the nature of the debate advanced by the Scottish mafia, the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), because they are looking at the entire matter from the point of view of their constituents who have suffered from drug offences and drug users. I understand their deep, honest and genuine concerns about that, but by throwing the book at anyone who could possibly be connected with money laundering we run the risk of inflicting great injustices. For that reason, new clause 7 is a sensible compromise in the circumstances.
	There is a lack of understanding about the highly pressurised environment in which junior staff work in the City of London and the responsibilities that are placed on them. It is simplistic for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok to suggest that every money laundering act will involve an individual turning up with a plastic bag full of tens of thousands of pounds. The reality is that hundreds, if not thousands, of transactions take place on a daily basis on the trading screens of City of London money brokers. Junior staff in particular who are not accustomed to working in such pressurised environments may unknowingly let things slip through the net.

Ian Lucas: Is it not important in such circumstances that the institutions have systems in place? Would not the offence encourage organisations and investment institutions to improve their systems that have failed so markedly?

Mark Field: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Clearly systems will be in place. However, if they become compliance and regulation-oriented, there is a risk that we will lose a significant amount of business because a raft of large global financial organisations will decide not to continue to work in the City of London. I accept that a balance needs to be struck. We do not want London to be a soft touch for money laundering or other financial offences. I hope that that is clear.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough is a barrister. It strikes me that until recently barristers could not be found guilty of negligence, a decision based on public policy grounds because of the independence of the Bar. If we put in place a major new criminal offence that allows of negligence, that will bring with it the juggernaut of state controls exercised by the Assets Recovery Agency. That is not a fair balance. There is a public policy issue at stake. Those criminal sanctions should be applied only in the most extreme cases if someone has merely been negligent.
	I am not entirely convinced by the plea-bargaining argument that has been advanced, but I fear that there may be something in it. If new clause 7 is accepted, junior staff might more easily be found guilty under the negligence provisions. Proof would be easier to establish in that regard, and the courts would also bring to bear a certain amount of sympathy if this option were open. Senior individuals who turn a blind eye to, or actively collaborate with, money launderers will surely feel the full force of clause 330. The provision suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is therefore sensible, and I hope that serious consideration will be given to it, either here or in the House of Lords.

Dominic Grieve: This issue has given rise to an interesting debate and excited a lot of comment in the House, just as it did in Committee. It is with some regret that I say, however, that the further our debate has progressed, the more worried I have become. It became clear from the Minister's responsevia his officialsthat he envisages a single count on an indictment, with the two offences rolled together. Even under the Bill as drafted, it is technically possible to have two counts, but the policy view is clearly that the offence is a single offence. That worries me all the more, and leads me to believe that new clause 7, which would establish a separate offence and penalty for negligence, is the better option.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for their contributions, and to other Members who made the same point. I am afraid that the Minister has not persuaded me, and I intend to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 306.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being more than two and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [26 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 329
	  
	Acquisition, use and possession

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 192, line 18, leave out for and insert by.
	No. 92, in page 192, line 18, leave out help him and insert
	'he knows or suspects may help another'.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Clause 330
	  
	Failure to disclose: regulated sector

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 192, line 38, at end insert
	'(c) subsection (5A) applies to him.
	(5A) This subsection applies to a person if
	(a) he does not know or suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering, and
	(b) he has not been provided by his employer with such training as is specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this section.'.
	No. 94, in page 193, line 16, leave out a view to and insert the intention of.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Clause 331
	  
	Tipping off

Amendment made: No. 95, in page 193, line 42, leave out a view to and insert the intention of.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

New Clause 4
	  
	Code of practice

'(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice as to the exercise by the Director and appropriate officers of functions they have under this Chapter.
	(2) After preparing a draft of the code the Secretary of State
	(a) must publish the draft;
	(b) must consider any representations made to him about the draft;
	(c) may amend the draft accordingly.
	(3) After the Secretary of State has proceeded under subsection (2) he must lay the code before Parliament.
	(4) When he has done so the Secretary of State may bring the code into operation on such day as he may appoint by order.
	(5) The Director must comply with a code of practice which is in operation under this section in the exercise of any function he has under this Chapter.
	(6) An appropriate officer must comply with a code of practice which is in operation under this section in the exercise of any function he has under this Chapter.
	(7) If the Director or an appropriate officer fails to comply with any provision of such a code of practice he is not by reason only of that failure liable in any criminal or civil proceedings.
	(8) But the code of practice is admissible in evidence in such proceedings and a court may take account of any failure to comply with its provisions in determining any question in the proceedings.
	(9) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise a code previously brought into operation under this section; and the preceding provisions of this section apply to a revised code as they apply to the code as first prepared.
	(10) The following provisions do not apply to an appropriate officer in the exercise of any function he has under this Chapter
	(a) section 67(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (application of codes of practice under that Act to persons other than police officers);
	(b) Article 66(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)) (which makes similar provision for Northern Ireland).'.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 12Code of Practice (No. 2).
	New clause 8Investigations: anonymity of Agency staff and others
	'(1) Where the Director is satisfied that there is good reason to believe that the conduct of an investigation or the safety of a nominated officer might be prejudiced if the identity of that officer were known, he may determine that the nominated officer shall have the benefit of anonymity.
	(2) For the purposes of this section, a nominated officer is
	(a) a member of staff of the Agency, or
	(b) an accredited financial investigator.
	(3) Where, apart from this section, a nominated officer may be required for the purpose of exercising his functions in the conduct of an investigation to produce or show any written authority or otherwise to identify himself, a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity shall
	(a) not be required to produce or show any such authority or to so identify himself for the purpose of exercising his functions, and
	(b) be accompanied by a constable who shall, on request by a person affected, identify himself as a constable and state that he is accompanied by a nominated officer.
	(4) Where a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity exercises his functions in the conduct of an investigation in writing, such function shall be exercised in the name of the Agency and not in the name of the nominated officer with benefit of anonymity.
	(5) Any document relating to proceedings arising out of an investigation where a nominated officer had benefit of anonymity shall not reveal the identity or address of a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity.
	(6) For the purposes of this section, investigation means any investigation specified in section 336 other than a money laundering investigation.'.
	New clause 9Offence of prejudicing investigation by identifying nominated officer with benefit of anonymity
	'(1) This section applies if a person knows or suspects that a nominated officer has the benefit of anonymity for the purposes of section [Investigations: anonymity of Agency staff and others].
	(2) A person commits an offence if he publishes or causes to be published
	(a) the fact that an individual is or was a nominated officer with the benefit of anonymity,
	(b) the fact that an individual is a member of the family of a person who is or was a nominated officer with the benefit of anonymity, or
	(c) the address of any place as being the address where an individual who is or was a nominated officer with the benefit of anonymity or a member of the family of a person who is or was a nominated officer with the benefit of anonymity resides.
	(3) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) if
	(a) he does not know or suspect that the identification of a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity is likely to prejudice the investigation, or
	(b) the identification is made in the exercise of a function under this Act or any other enactment relating to criminal conduct or benefit from criminal conduct or in compliance with a requirement imposed under or by virtue of this Act.
	(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both, or
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.'.
	Amendment No. 63, in clause 337, page 197, line 18, leave out a civil recovery investigation.
	Government amendment No. 108.
	Amendment No. 67, in clause 352, page 206, line 11, leave out either.
	Amendment No. 66, in page 206, line 11, leave out or at once.
	Government amendments Nos. 98 and 99.
	Amendment No. 167, in clause 384, page 222, line 3, leave out either.
	Amendment No. 166, in page 222, line 3, leave out or at once.
	Government amendment No. 102.
	Amendment No. 73, in clause 447, page 258, line 15, after 295(4), insert , 359(4).
	Government amendments Nos. 251 and 103.
	Amendment No. 75, in page 258, line 26, after 295(4), insert , 359(4).
	Government amendment No. 253.

Bob Ainsworth: Well done, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	New clause 4 requires the Secretary of State to issue a statutory code of practice on the exercise of the investigation powers in chapter 2 of part 8. It will provide guidance on how the use of such powers on confiscation, civil recovery and money-laundering investigations is to be conducted by the director. New clause 12 provides for a similar code for Scotland.
	We acknowledge that the powers contained in part 8 are fairly intrusive. None the less, we believe that such powers are fully justified, because without them it is unlikely that the director of the new agency or others involved in law enforcement would be able to make any substantial improvement in asset recovery.
	Similar schemes in other legislation include codes of practice to ensure that there is a measure of control. The code will be published in draft, put out for consultation and laid before both Houses and the Scottish Parliament. Any breach of the code would be admissible as evidence in criminal and civil proceedings.
	It is entirely sensible to have a code that supports and guides the investigation powers in part 8. We intend that it should offer clear and helpful guidance on how the functions vested in the director and accredited financial investigators should be conducted. It will also be used as a safeguard to ensure that the powers are operated consistently.
	Government amendments Nos. 102 and 103 provide that the order that brings the code of practice into operation will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to publish a draft code of practice for consideration, as the Bill moves from the House to another place? He was very helpful in Committee in talking about publishing such drafts and, at all stages, the Government have tried their best to provide helpful, indicative guidance. Will he follow that example with the new code of practice?

Bob Ainsworth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have made this proposal because of concerns expressed by him, his hon. Friends and others. I will try to ensure that people receive any draft so that they can see it in advance, but I do not know what the practicalities or the time scale for that will be.
	Having confirmed that any such order will be subject to the affirmative procedure, I turn to the new clauses and amendments that the Opposition have tabled. New clause 8 would grant anonymity in certain circumstances to the agency's staff. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) is sitting in his place, and I welcome the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's latest report on the proceeds of crime, the recommendations of which are reflected in new clauses 8 and 9. The Government are considering the report very carefully.
	We are aware that the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland enjoys statutory anonymity, and we are considering the position in the United Kingdom, as we want the agency's staff to be able to carry out their job effectively, to bear down on the proceeds of crime, without suffering from intimidation or reprisals in doing so. However, we must take into account the current provisions that apply to those who deal with the criminal fraternity.
	Anonymity is currently only available to police and customs officers in very limited circumstances in investigating terrorism, and civilian staff working for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have no statutory right to anonymity. So it would be a big step to allow anonymity for agency staff, but I am fully aware of the situation in Northern Ireland, which perhaps differs from that in the rest of the jurisdiction. I am also aware of the worry that the agency should be able to attract good-quality staff and to do its job effectively in Northern Ireland. I want to reassure Members that, although I do not want to accept the new clause now, we are seriously considering the position.

Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister giving way on that point because not only did we discover that anonymity was effective in the Criminal Assets Bureau, which faces similar troubles, but we discovered today that there are those from England, Scotland and elsewhere who believe that anonymity is important if they are to fight organised crime, which is increasing not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the issue, but I ask him not to give too much weight to the views of those who think that it impinges on civil liberties because we have to consider the liberties of the servants of the state who are trying to defeat organised crime.

Bob Ainsworth: I was about to deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Not only the agency's staff but those working for law enforcement and asset recovery bodies in Scotland will be involved, and they will do exactly the same job and be answerable to the Scottish Ministers or to the Lord Advocate, so we cannot consider only the agency's staff. Other financial investigators who operate outside the agency in other public bodies will investigate serious offences, and we would not necessarily want an automatic difference to be drawn between those who work for the agency and those other people.
	Hon. Members understand some of the difficulties involved. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about not being too concerned about some of the civil liberties arguments. I absolutely recognise the particular circumstances that can apply in Northern Ireland and the fact that we may have to deal with people who commit offences in the rest of the jurisdiction that are as serious as those that need to be dealt with in Northern Ireland, and I seek to assure the hon. Gentleman that such issues will be considered properly and that they will be discussed in another place.

Norman Baker: Although I personally accept that it is sensible to provide anonymity for certain individuals who may be threatenedto that extent I welcome the new clausedoes the Minister agree that, if that principle is accepted, a check needs to be put in place to ensure that that opportunity is not abused?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman points out some of the complications and difficulties that exist. We will announce our conclusions as soon as we reach them, having listened to everyone concerned and will, if necessary, table amendments in the other place.

Martin Smyth: I understand that people have a right of appeal if they think that such legislation is used unfairly. That protection would be acceptable, but given that we live in a world where two strikes are allowed before action can be taken, where people are acquitted by the courts and have gone free and where godfathers have not been brought before the courts, does the Minister accept that it is important to consider the lifestyle as well?

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, and we have got to take seriouslynot only in the Northern Ireland contextthe cross-reference between organised crime, money- laundering offences and terrorism. If that was not apparent to all of us before the events of 11 September to the degree that it should have been, it certainly ought to be apparent to us now. Some serious issues therefore need to be considered. I do not promise the hon. Gentleman that I will be able to square the circle to his satisfaction and that of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but we shall certainly consider those issues seriously, and we intend to table amendments if we can find a way through such things.
	Opposition amendment No. 63 would exclude civil recovery investigations from the offence of prejudicing an investigation. The Government believe that there should be sanctions and that anybody who prejudices an investigation or a prospective investigation by making a disclosure about it or by tampering with documents relevant to that investigation should be subject to the possibility of penalties. I neither understand nor accept the justification or reason for the amendment, and unless I hear something very strange from Opposition Members, I shall be asking the House to oppose it.

John Gummer: Will the Minister help the House by saying in which other circumstances anything so draconian is available in civil proceedings? I do not know of any.

Bob Ainsworth: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, but ask him to accept that we considered the civil classification and differences that apply under part 5 for many hours in Committee. In normal civil circumstances, the situation is straightforward: an allegation is made and tested in court, one to one. In these circumstances, the director needs some investigatory powers in order to be able to bring a case in the first place. We are not talking about a straightforward confrontation over an issue as usual in civil litigation.
	Effectively, Opposition Members suggest in the amendment that people should be allowed to tamper or interfere with or prevent an initial investigation free from any chance of anyone taking action against them. I do not accept that that should be so. I believe that, broadly, we have cross-party support on bearing down on the proceeds of crime and that the proposed investigatory powers, which are essential to making the civil part of the Bill work, should not be tampered with.

Paul Stinchcombe: Will the Minister confirm that there are occasions already where interfering with civil proceedings can lead to criminal offencesfor example, trying to pervert the course of justice in a libel trial?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is more knowledgeable then me on the matter, but I can tell him that there are similar criminal sanctions associated with civil investigations in other legislation. For example, under section 177 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, a person can be fined or imprisoned if they produce false or misleading material to an investigator. So, as my hon. Friend's example also shows, the proposed provision is not entirely without precedent.
	Government amendment No. 108 will extend the definition of judges who may hear applications in the Crown court in England and Wales. It was tabled in response to an issue raised in Committee. I assured hon. Members that I would revisit it. The amendment's wording is designed to exclude people such as the Lord Mayor of the City of London and aldermen, who are entitled to sit as judges in the central criminal court, but none the less widens the definition as suggested by Opposition Members in Committee.
	Under Opposition amendments Nos. 66 and 67, the director of the Assets Recovery Agency would not be able to conduct an interview with an individual under a disclosure order with immediate effect. We discussed that point in Committee. The proposed disclosure order is modelled on the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which contains the word forthwith. The Northern Ireland legislation contains a code of practice in relation to the exercise of the investigation powers. That is one of the reasons why we have proposed under new clause 4 to introduce similar guidance. We will try to address the specific point raised in Committee by covering the whole gamut of provisions, such as access to legal advice and the rest, in guidance.
	Opposition amendments Nos. 166 and 167 would do the same in Scotland. Government new clause 12 will require Scottish Ministers to introduce a similar code of practice. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be able to accept that the same logic should be applied to jurisdiction north of the border.
	Government amendments Nos. 98 and 99 are technical. I hope that I do not have to waste the time of the House in going over them. We had overlooked the fact that the powers of the High Court in Northern Ireland are more limited. Amendment No. 98 broadens the scope of clause 370, and amendment No. 99 excludes from the clause account monitoring orders made in relation to a civil recovery investigation in England and Wales, as the High Court of England and Wales already has the powers to deal with such applications.
	I accept that Opposition amendments Nos. 73 and 75 would introduce similar provisions to those in paragraph 7(3) of schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which are exercised under the affirmative resolution. We consider, nevertheless, that given the limited and technical nature of the definition of customer information in the Bill, the negative procedure is reasonable and will provide for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
	I invite hon. Members to withdraw new clauses 8 and 9 and amendments Nos. 66, 67, 73, 75, 166 and 167.

Nick Hawkins: I welcome once again the way in which the Minister has responded to a number of the points that we made in Committee, and I thank him for his helpful response to my earlier intervention. We hope that it will be possible at least to see a draft form of the code of practice referred to in some of the Government amendments. I thank him for saying that he will investigate carefully the practicalities of that.
	The fact that the operation of the guillotines prevents discussion of certain very important matters on Report has once again been demonstrated. Just before we began considering this group of amendments, the House was not given any opportunity to discuss two other groups, which included some amendments on which Opposition Members wished to vote. In effect, especially because of a large number of speeches by Government Back Benchers on a previous group of amendmentsI do not blame the Ministerand the operation of the guillotine, just as many matters were never reached in Committee, they have not been discussed by the House. Important matters will go to the other place completely undebated by this House.
	I make that point because of an example that arose last night, which also relates to Northern Ireland. Opposition amendment No. 145 was not reached before the guillotine fell. It went to the same point as the excellent new clauses 8 and 9 tabled by members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. All hon. Members accept the importance of the links between organised crime and racketeering in Ulster and the funding of terrorist paramilitary organisations. That is why I welcome the unanimous report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I hope that Ulster Unionist party Members and others will speak to those new clauses, and I encourage members of the Select Committee to press them to a vote; if they do, Conservative Members will support them.

Bob Ainsworth: First, I should like to firm up my offer and state that we can produce a draft code. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timetable, but I can give a commitment that we will do that. Secondly, on the issue of time, I point out that our extensive debate before the knife fell on the first part of our debate today was an almost exact re-run of a Standing Committee debate that was described by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) as the longest single debate in the Committee. If that hon. Gentleman then spends more than half an hour moving his amendments, he must expect that we will run out of time and that other business will not be discussed.

Nick Hawkins: I welcome the Minister's first point. It is helpful to know that it should be possible to see the draft code of practice, and I am grateful to him for firming up that assurance.
	I think that the Minister would accept that his criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is unjust. My hon. Friend was dealing with important matters and he took many interventions from Government Back Benchers. Hansard will show that it was almost entirely owing to his generosity in responding to the points made by Government Back Benchers that the debate was extended. Furthermore, Hansard will reveal that a huge proportion of the total time spent on those important matters was taken by Government Back Benchers re-running previously made arguments.
	Those who have read the Committee proceedings on the Bill will be aware that the Opposition have repeatedly stressed our concern about the crucial issues that relate to paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. The Minister will agree that few matters relating to money laundering and associated offences affecting United Kingdom citizens are more important than the way in which such offences and similar racketeering operations occur in Northern Ireland. Although all money laundering is a serious crime, it is hard to imagine anything more serious than when it is done for the specific purpose of funding terrorist murder and other acts of violence.
	I therefore welcome the unanimous report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I draw the House's attention to paragraph 6, in which the Committee describes its visit to the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland. I have discussed that with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and I know that he wants to reinforce some of the points made in the report. The report states:
	The Republic of Ireland's Criminal Assets Bureau deals with sophisticated and dangerous criminals, some of whom have paramilitary connections. In a number of cases these individuals, prior to the establishment of the Bureau, had evaded the law enforcement agencies by verbal and physical intimidation of both witnesses and officials. We
	that is, the Committee
	were told that on occasion extreme violence had been used. Officers working for the Bureau are dealing with cases which it would frequently be difficult to pursue through other means without exposing staff to considerable personal risk.
	We all know that that sort of thing goes on. During one of our debates, I mentioned my great concern on being told that even senior officials working on the mainland for the Crown Prosecution Service had had to be moved because of threats from representatives of organised crime.
	We recognise that members of the Select Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), have taken the opportunity to table new clauses 8 and 9 to try to put much tougher measures on the face of the Bill. Although the Minister is being helpful and has said that he is prepared to contemplate introducing similar Government amendments at a later stage, the issue is so important that I encourage those behind the new clauses to press them tonight. Both in Committee and in the House, the Opposition have often been accused of seeking to water down the Bill. There can be no argument that the new clauses would have that effect; on the contrary, they would toughen up the Bill in the same way as our amendment No. 145sadly, not reached last nightwould have done.
	We welcome the fact that in several of their amendments the Government have responded to concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, other Conservative Members and I raised in Committee. Government new clauses 4 and 12, the second of which relates to Scotland, reflect the importance of the code of practice and are therefore welcome.
	Government amendment No. 108 to clause 338 is, as the Minister explained, a specific response to concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and reinforced by other Conservative members of the Standing Committee. We argued that there should be an opportunity to define precisely the range of judges able to use the powers in the Bill when it is enacted, and the range of the jurisdiction they exercise. I ask the Minister to make it clear whether the new wording will allow those who sit as Crown court recorders, rather than as circuit judges, to exercise that jurisdiction. I understand why the Minister expressed his argument as he did and we accept his point in respect of those who are given the status of circuit judge purely in their ceremonial capacity, such as City of London aldermen. We thoroughly welcome his concession in response to our arguments.
	Amendments Nos. 67, 66, 167 and 166 would remove the words either and or at once. We regard the matter as important. I shall listen to the Minister's response in due course, but I signal now the possibility of our pressing the amendments to a vote, especially amendment No. 66. Our aim is to make the operation of a new draconian measure more reasonable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, draconian powers that require the organs of the state to demand instant action are not normal. Usually, even when serious allegations are involved, there is provision to allow legal advice to be taken.
	I acknowledge the Minister's attempt to assist by saying that the matters may be dealt with in a code of practice, but we want to ensure that the procedure operates properly. The Government have said that the Bill complies in every respect with the Human Rights Act 1998Ministers now have to certify that when they present a Bill. However, unless the Government accept a provision such as the one proposed in amendments Nos. 67, 66, 167, and 166, I wonder whether there is a danger that the procedure might be struck down in a future case. The Minister might say that the Government are prepared to risk it; I shall listen carefully.
	Similar concerns prompt amendment No. 63 in respect of civil recovery investigations. We wonder whether it is appropriate for such draconian powers to exist in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal correctly says is a civil procedure.

Vera Baird: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that it had occurred to him that there might be a breach of the European convention on human rights as a result of the demand laid on someone to supply information or answer questions at once. If that is right, has he worked out which article of the convention he fears might be breached?

Nick Hawkins: I am tempted to say that that is a question of which I might require notice. I shall give the matter some thought, and perhaps I shall be able to respond more fully in a later intervention on the Minister or on the hon. Lady, after I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
	I wanted to say that the Opposition welcome Government amendments Nos. 98 and 99. As the Minister said, such technical amendments are not expected to cause much debate. They are tidying amendments, and we recognise that the Government are right to say that the High Court jurisdiction in Northern Ireland was more limited. The Government have undoubtedly been sensible to respond to that. Again, Government amendment No. 202 is purely technical in relation to the code of practice.
	Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 are more significant. They deal with the meaning of customer information, which is set out in clause 359(4). We feel that that matter should be referred to again in clause 447. Again, I shall listen to the comments of the Minister and other hon. Members on that. Government amendments Nos. 251, 103 and 253 are also technical, and we have no difficulty with them. I shall be interested to hear the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members.

Adrian Bailey: I want to speak on new clauses 8 and 9, which I tabled along with the Chairman and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. We do not intend to press the new clauses to a vote. None the less, they outline issues that are clearly worthy of serious debate.
	Before I deal with the substance of those issues, I shall explain why I propose the new clauses. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee had a pre-arranged visit to Northern Ireland in pursuit of its inquiry into the financing of terrorism, and it was not anticipated that members of the Committee would return in time for this debate. Unfortunately, the timetabling of the debate was such that the original arrangements could not be altered. Having said that, some members of the Committee, whom I understand have taken an early flight back from Belfast, are present for this debate. Although I am still beholden to make our case, it is a reflection of the seriousness and concern with which they regard this issue that they have made such an effort.
	The Committee's objective was to pinpoint the key sources of paramilitary funds, and to examine ways in which the Government and law enforcement agencies could cut off those money flows. The Committee is still taking evidence and I am therefore restricted in what I can say. However, I can say that we learned very early in our consideration of the subject that there is an increasingly strong connection between paramilitary organisations and organised crime. As a result of that discovery, the focus of our inquiry has shifted to a certain extent.
	We recognise that the Bill is directed at more conventional criminality than paramilitary-linked outrages. Nevertheless, the added benefit of the Bill is its potential for cutting off the finance that fuels the flames of violence in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has an Organised Crime Taskforce to tackle the problem, but the proposed Assets Recovery Agency will be an important and welcome addition and support.
	Although the Committee's examination of these issues has been in Northern Ireland, there can be no doubt that some considerations are common to fighting criminality anywhere in the UK. Above all, those who are subject to financial investigations are likely to be ruthless and vicious people, whether or not they have paramilitary links. The closer that such investigations get to the targets, the more dangerous the targets are likely to become. That assumption lies behind new clauses 8 and 9, and it is one based on experience. The new clauses were prompted by recent visits to the Republic of Ireland, where we met and interviewed members of the Criminal Assets Bureau. The principal findings from our visit were published in our second report on 14 February, as previous speakers have mentioned.
	The Criminal Assets Bureau is the Irish equivalent of the proposed Assets Recovery Agency. We were told that the formation of the bureau in the mid-1990s arose from widespread public concern about the growth of organised crime, and especially about the murders of a policeman, Garda Jerry McCabe, and the investigative journalist, Veronica Guerin. Those two murders illustrated most clearly the potential dangers of the work that must be done. Over and above that, we heard other tales of intimidation, threats and violence against officials working on issues such as drug trafficking and social security.
	When inviting people to take posts as financial investigators or when staff of other agencies are involved in investigations, we must recognise that we are exposing people to risks for which they may never have been trained. The success of the agency will depend to a great extent on staff with professional skills who may never have envisaged being in the forefront of the fight against organised crime. In such circumstances, it is necessary to give them maximum protection. It seemed to the Committee that if we are to pursue serious criminals effectively, we need to provide officials who do so with a measure of protection. That protection will allow them to go about their work with confidence that no harm will come to them as a result. They and their families must also feel secure that no harm with come to their relatives.
	In the Republic of Ireland, that protection has been provided to civilian staff of the Criminal Assets Bureau through the statutory provision of anonymity. When staff participate in searches, they may be identified to the respondent only as a member of the bureau staff, provided that they are accompanied by a member of the local Gardai. When letters are sent out about unpaid tax under the revenue Acts, they can be signed off merely in the name of the Criminal Assets Bureau, and not in the name of the individual conducting the investigation. Furthermore, it is an offence to identify publicly any member of the bureau's civilian staff or any member of his or her family. Staff of the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have stressed to us just how important they believe that protection is in enabling the bureau to pursue the recovery of criminal assets effectively.
	The assets and money recovered are a measure of the bureau's success. So far, 50 cases brought under the Republic's proceeds of crime legislation have been taken through the courts successfully. As a result, 21 million punts have been frozen and a further 28 million punts taken in tax. Given the time scale involved, there will be further returns from assets that are currently frozen.
	The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recognises the potential for the Assets Recovery Agency to play a similar role in pursuing organised crime. We want it to be as effective as the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland, if not better. Protection for the staff of the new agency will be vital, both in encouraging the right people to take up the work and, above all, in enabling them to concentrate on the work without fear of personal danger.
	We tabled new clauses 8 and 9 because it was not apparent to us that such protection would be provided under the Bill. We do not claim that the new clauses provide all the answers to all the questions posed.

Michael Mates: I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to the new clauses so ably on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I wrote to the Minister on behalf of the Committee when we published our special report and, as a result of receiving a generous response suggesting what he might say tonight, we discussed the issue when the Committee met in Belfast this morning. We concluded that his reply was as far as we could expect a Minister to go given the short notice and the circumstances. We welcome the suggestion that he will consider the matter closely and sympathetically. That is why the Committee decided that we should not press the new clauses to a vote.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. As a member of the Committee who was not in Belfast, I am glad that by a process of intellectual osmosis I was able to reach the right conclusion.
	I welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister gave in his opening remarks and his constructive engagement with this issue. I accept his genuine desire to find a way forward to overcome some of the legal obstacles. On the basis of that, I thank him and hope that he will take seriously the comments made in the debate and will do everything within his power to address the issues that have been raised.

Norman Baker: I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey). He put his case with moderation and probably convinced nearly everyone in the Chamber of the validity of his arguments. I also welcome the fact that the Minister has been good enough to say that he believes that there is merit in those arguments and that he will consider them. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said, that is as much as we can expect of a Minister at this stage.
	New clause 8 has considerable merits. Liberal Democrat Members support it and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), our Northern Ireland spokesman, expressed his support when I discussed the matter with him earlier. It seems sensible not to press the new clause to a vote, and I must point out to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), with whom I worked on and off in Committee, that we are working under a guillotine. Therefore, if a Minister says that he will consider a new clause carefully, it is not a sensible use of time to spend 15 minutes in the Division Lobbies, not least because a Division now might persuade Labour to vote the wrong way when we want them to vote the right way after they have had a chance to consider the matter.
	One point that I would make in passing about new clause 8 is that it is paramount that, if the safety of an individual is compromised or could be compromised, anonymity should be provided for the individual. Equally, checks and balances must be in place to ensure that the facility for anonymity is not misused. If there is a choice between accountability and safety, safety must come first. Let us make sure that the process is not misused if it is introduced.
	Another point occurs to me but it probably goes beyond this debate. It is important to ensure proper co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic. If we are to make the Bill work properly, a concordat or a similar measure should be in place to ensure co-operation. Perhaps it takes place already, but Northern Ireland Members will know more about that than I do.
	I am sorry to return to the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, but it is not fair to criticise the Government for the time that they have allocated to the Bill. Such criticism is not appropriate. They provided 39 stepsif I may call them thatin Committee and a great deal of time. If members of the Committee did not reach the amendments that they wanted to discuss, we should look to ourselves and the way in which we used our time instead of blaming the Government.
	I am not particularly convinced that amendments Nos. 67, 66, 167 and 166, which were tabled by Conservative Members, are the appropriate way forward. I am not sure that they make sense. Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 would delete the words either and or at once in clause 352(4)(a), which is the paragraph that deals with answering questions, but the same words also appear in subsection (4)(c), which covers the production of documents. As far as I can seeI might have misread the amendmentsthe words are not deleted in that paragraph. Therefore, if the Conservative amendments are approved, there would be no requirement to answer questions at once, but there would be a requirement to produce documents at once. That might be the intention of Conservative Members, but it appears a little inconsistent.

Nick Hawkins: Answering questions at once is very different from having to produce documents forthwith. Much legislation already contains the requirement to produce documents forthwith, but there is a danger involved in forcing people to answer questions at once without their having any opportunity to take advice. This point also gives me an opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), because there is also the danger that the Government may face problems under articles 6(3)[b] and 6(3)[c] of the European convention on human rights when these matters are analysed in the courts.

Norman Baker: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to refer to the relevant articles of the convention. Perhaps the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who knows more about these matters than I do, might wish to vouchsafe whether they are the relevant articles.
	If it is inappropriate to require questions to be answered at once, it is even more inappropriate to require documents to be produced at once. After all, one can answer a question after one has received legal advice, and the Minister has referred to the safeguards that he wishes to introduce. I hope that he will provide more information on how the safeguards will work to ensure that people are not unduly forced to provide information if they have not received legal advice. He suggested that he was aware of the issue, and I would be grateful if he could pick up on that point.
	A person can theoretically answer a question at once, but they could not necessarily produce a document at once, perhaps because it was elsewhere. In a sense, it is a more onerous requirement. In addition, clause 352(4(b) contains the requirement to
	produce information specified in the notice, by a time and in a manner so specified.
	The time specified could be immediately, so the deletion of the words or at once does not get round the problem that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) tried to identify. Unusually, the hon. Gentleman's amendment does not make a great deal of sense and is not coherent. It is not justified if the Minister has the safeguards in mind to which he referred. I shall be grateful if he expands on that.
	I am not convinced that the requirement to have answers at once, if there are safeguards, would breach the Human Rights Act. I shall be interested to hear whether the hon. Member for Redcar has a view on that. I am keen to invoke the 1998 Act wherever possible. It is good legislation and one of the best things that the Government have done. I am struggling to find a means by which it could be applied in the way that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath would like to see.
	Let us allow the Minister to leave the House and think about new clause 8. I am happy, for the sake of appearing not to be too supportive of the Conservatives, to disagree with their amendments in the group that is before us.

John Robertson: I am pleased that new clauses 8 and 9 have been accepted in principle, if not in their entirety. I am glad that I will not have to decide which Lobby to pass through, as it seems that the proposals will not be put to a vote. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs should be congratulated on the work that it has done.
	I shall move on to amendment No. 63, and I hope that I will be intervened on when I ask my questions. Why do the Tories not want an offence of prejudicing investigation in the context of a civil recovery investigation? It might be said that it is a draconian measure, but draconian to whomthe victims of crime, or those who profit by crime? To me, a draconian measure would suggest that everybody suffers. But the only people who appear to me to be suffering at present are the victims of crime.
	I am in a quandary yet again in relation to amendments Nos. 66, 167 and 168, which are basically the same. Those amendments would seem to be advantageous to those who in the director's opinion have information. Why would we not want to gain information, and why would we not want to obtain it quickly? Criminals can move vast sums quickly, so surely we would want to get hold of them immediately. As I mentioned earlier in terms of the Drug Enforcement Agency in Scotland and Strathclyde police, the point was made on several occasions that we must seize assets quickly and, if possible, obtain the relevant information even more quickly. Why are we seeking to introduce measures that would lengthen the time during which we secure information? Perhaps the Opposition's spokesman will answer these questions for me in his summing up.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I shall leave the summing up to my Front-Bench spokesman.
	It is easy to see these things in black and white, and I think that what we have tried to do throughout is to look at them in shades of grey. The innocent parties who concern the Conservatives and whose interests need to be protected are on the wholethough not exclusivelyinnocent members of the public who find the juggernaut of a new state agency up against them. It is against the background of the almost Kafkaesque world in which it would seem some Labour Members try to live that we have tabled what we hope are searching amendments. That is not to say that the general thrust of what is being proposed is not supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a speech.

John Robertson: I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's questions, but it is time that the juggernaut to which he refers got to grips with crime. The Conservative Government were in power for a long time but they did not get to grips with it. The Labour Government have been in power for more than four years, and we have not properly come to grips with it. The Bill is the best measure that I have seen to enable us to get hold of criminals and their ill-gotten gainsassets that have been taken from those who have become drug addicts, or from organised crime in large cities or smaller ones. Perhaps we have got to the crux of the matter as regards Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, as I think they call themselves. Perhaps they have become total oppositionists who feel that they have to oppose every Bill that the Government put before the House and to advance reasons for so doing. That is sad.

David Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Opposition oppose only for the sake of it, will he explain why it is that when we have opposed certain things those on the Government Front Bench have agreed with us, accepted our opposition and brought forward amendments? Surely that undermines the hon. Gentleman's argument.

John Robertson: There is always the exception that proves the rule.
	We listen. We have become a listening Government, much to the annoyance of the Opposition. The fact that we may have listened to some of the arguments and found something worth listening to probably surprises me more than anyone. The fact remains that the Opposition oppose everything that the Government put before the House, and especially this Bill.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments, given that I intervened earlier. I share the concern that has been expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) about dealing with drug addicts and about smuggling in Scotland. The lesson that has been coming through is that the best way to tackle these folk is to hit them where it hurts, and that is through their finances and by dealing with the crimes that they are committing. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that there is a juggernaut directed against the citizens of the United Kingdom. If anything, it is a juggernaut against those who have been growing rich on the poverty and misery of others in the UK.
	I speak as a Northern Ireland Member, but I have always thought of myself as a British Member of Parliament. When Northern Ireland Members illustrate our experience, I regret that it is thought that we are dealing only with Northern Ireland. I understand that recently in Yorkshire there was a vast smuggling expedition, which had an impact on the Treasury. There might have been some people from Ireland, but at this stage I cannot comment emphatically.
	The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs took the opportunity, as the Bill was passing through Parliament, to highlight some gaps. We welcome the fact that the Government are ready to examine these matters. I trust that before the Bill leaves the House, some amendments will be accepted and fine tuned. There is some time to go.
	As I have said, some gaps have been noted. For example, people speak of the relationship between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. In the Northern Ireland courts, recently, we were able to imprison a person who was retailing illegal petrol, but we could not deal with the person in the Republic who supplied it. Why was that? The answer is that in international terms there seems to be no legislation that allows for extradition for fiscal charges.
	It seems to me that ultimately all crime comes down to fiscal issues. There is the person in poverty who steals because she wants to feed a child and has not the money to do so. That is a fiscal problem. The Government must consider the issue with their colleagues in the European Union and perhaps elsewhere to ascertain whether something can be done to cross frontiers.
	When members of the Select Committee visited the Republic, we discovered that perhaps one of the greatest benefactors of what has been going on possibly lives in the east end of London. It is an interesting world that we live in. Anyone who thinks that the Bill has been introduced simply because of Northern Ireland or, for that matter, the Republic, should think again.
	I regret to have to say that in the House some years back, a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office defended the fact that social security was provided for a person who had a job in this place that he would not take up. He would not take up a job, yet the family was getting social security. Why? Because otherwise some social security staff might have been endangered. That is why the concept of anonymity must be tackled seriously. I urge the Government not just to consider the matter, but to press ahead with the necessary legislative changes before the Bill returns to us in this place.

Vera Baird: I join colleagues who have complimented the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, particularly its Chairman, on the convincing, honest and straightforward way in which the Committee presented its arguments.
	I shall deal briefly with amendments Nos. 66 and 67, which would amend clause 352, under which a judge can make a disclosure order which might require someone to answer questions at a time specified in a notice at a place specified in a notice, or at once. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that amendment No. 66 does not deal with the problem, if problem it be, because even if the words at once are removed, as long as one leaves in the power to specify a time and a place in the notice, one can specify the time and place of delivery of the notice, which is the same as at once.

Dominic Grieve: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, but I disagree with her slightly. If the words at once were removed, the court would have to infer reasonableness in the way in which the order was defined. I would consider it unreasonable for an immediate demand to be made, when it is clear from the rest of the clause that a time and place to be specified ought to give the person at least time to prepare himself. Removing at once removes a mischief.

Vera Baird: I take the hon. Gentleman's pointhe does have a pointbut bearing in mind the tenor of the power in clause 352, I am less sanguine that the courts would necessarily connote that reasonableness involved the opportunity to delay. That is my concern about the entire clause. Whether the power to order answers at once is express or implied, that difficulty arises. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can help me with that.
	I do not believe that there is a breach of the human rights convention and article 6.3. There is no human right not to answer questions. What matters is the use to which the answers are put thereafter. Of course, under clause 49 the director can pass on information which has been obtained by means of those unique powers. That may cause a difficulty, but it is the subject of a later debate.

Nick Hawkins: Both my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I are listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Does she recognise that those of us who have practised in the courts are familiar with the many occasions on which the standard police warningthe cautionis given: You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you say will be taken down and may be used in evidence? The new procedure has no provision for cautioning. Does the hon. Lady consider that if we leave the words requiring somebody to answer questions at once, without taking any advice at all, there is cause for concern? I appreciate that, in part, she supports us on the matter.

Vera Baird: It is obviously a long time since the hon. Gentleman was in practice, if he thinks that the caution takes that form any more, or has done for the past decade. I do not accept entirely what he says about caution and the absence of a caution from the clause. There are powers in the financial services provisions and in the fraud provision to require answers without the need for caution. The limitation is on what the answers can be used for.
	The dilemma is this: whether, at common lawleave out human rights entirelythere ought in all realism to be a right to take legal advice. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) does not imagine that the wealthy criminals whom the Bill attacks keep their lawyers in a box, drinking wine and waiting in case the director should come to call. How will the power to demand answers at oncewhether that power is express or, as I suggest it would be, impliedbe consistent with giving people their basic right to be advised? The Minister will recall that the matter was raised in Committee, but it was never resolved. That remains my anxiety.

Ian Davidson: I do not intend to answer the question, How many lawyers should fit in a box?
	I shall follow on from the earlier point about the interrelationship between crimes. Just as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee explored the subject of petrol smuggling in Northern Ireland directly, so indirectly did the Public Accounts Committee. That discussion made clear the extent to which drugs, petrol smuggling and other crimes were all tied in together and all involved money laundering. Interestingly, it also showed how the outwardly respectable are clearly involved in illegal activities.
	In the case of petrol smuggling, there is no doubt that the large oil companies are major players in the field. They supply enormous amounts of fuel to petrol stations just over the border in the Republic, knowing that such quantities of fuel will not be consumed in the immediate area. They are, so to speak, fuelling the smuggling trade by providing enormous quantities to those who they know, or ought to know, are using it for illegal purposes, in the same way as the tobacco companies collaborated in smuggling in various locations.
	The words at once are an important element of the clause, in terms of providing both documents and answers, but particularly documents. Over the years, I have been surprised by the number of businesses in trouble which have fires in their offices. That is obviously entirely coincidental and nothing whatever to do with any suggestion of malpractice, but if the police or other authorities have an interest in documents, it is clearly important that they are produced at once, before they spontaneously combust.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman may have been temporarily absent when it was made clear that we have not sought to amend the provisions of the Bill in relation to documents. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said that to be consistent, we ought to have done so, and we pointed out in response that there is a difference. It is perfectly well understood in the law that one must produce documents at once. Our amendment seeks to avoid the obligation to answer questions at once.

Ian Davidson: I was sure that even the Conservatives would not have the gall to suggest that documents should not be provided at once in the circumstances, even though, from their conduct in the Committee, it seemed possible that we were moving in that direction. All the parties represented in the Chamber, with the nationalists, who were not on the Committee, will be aware of the approach that the Conservatives generally took.
	I return to the matter of providing verbal answers at once. I have a difficulty with the prospect of people being tipped off that the authorities want to investigate some matter, and preparing an alibi and the lies that they will tell. That is as true of lawyers, accountants and bankers as of anyone else. There should be a provision for answers to be demanded at once. I fear that to delete such a provision would in some circumstances be to draw the teeth of the legislation. I accept that, if possible, it would be better to allow people time to prepare and to lift their lawyers, who may or may not have been drinking wine, out of the box, but there will be circumstances in which that is not in the public interest. The provision should be allowed to remain as it stands, the better to protect the people whom many of my colleagues and I represent, rather than the crooks and shysters for whom the Opposition want to find loopholes.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall be brief. I am not seeking to offend anyone, but as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) read his prepared script and appeared not to have listened to any of my comments on the amendments, I do not see any reason why I should say the same things again. The hon. Gentleman asked whether recorders were covered. That is precisely what was sought in Committee; they are covered, so they will be available and able to help.
	We discussed the term at once in Committee and I accept that it is exercising people. I do not want to go into detail on what the guidance will cover; indeed, I do not think that I can do so. The guidance that we envisage in new clauses 4 and 12 is designed to deal with the concerns raised in the amendments. That is our purpose and intention. It is not our intention to override people's rights to representation. However, some hon. Members appear to be encouraging me to preclude the ability to question people at once. Such questioning can be a very useful tool and I want to try to leave it available for use in appropriate circumstances, but yes, I also want to make certain that people have the right to advice, representation and the rest. Those are exactly the issues that I shall seek to cover in the code.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment; I notice that his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who raised concerns in that regard, is temporarily out of his seat. Disclosure orders cannot lead to criminal proceedings, so some of his comments were unnecessary and uncalled for.

Dominic Grieve: Clearly, the code of practice has the potential to be very helpful. However, if, as I think is likely, the code says that somebody who is required to answer questions should be given timeit may not be very long; even half an hour might be specifiedto understand and check their legal position, will not that be the most compelling of reasons to remove from the Bill the extraordinary two words, at once? The term is simply unnecessary and imposes a fetter through its insistence on immediate repliesan insistence that could turn out to be incompatible with the guidelines that I suspect may be produced.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman at some point during the Bill's passage that the sort of issues that he raises are unreasonable and unacceptable, and that we will seek to cover such concerns in other ways. I do not want to preclude in all circumstances the ability to require somebody to give information at once, and I shall try to avoid doing so.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in half an hour, millions, if not billions, of pounds could move between one country and another? Should not such matters be dealt with immediately, and not in half an hour's time?

Bob Ainsworth: I agree with my hon. Friend that such events can occur. However, it is not reasonable to demand information there and then in all circumstances without access to advice and all the rest of it. None the less, my hon. Friend raises a genuine issue and we will try to cover it.
	On the issue raised by members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I am trying to get the balance right. I do not want to indicate that this is a done deal or that I can satisfy them completely. I hope that I have explained that there are considerable hurdles, while impressing upon them that I am not attempting to fob them off in any way; that I recognise the issues; and that I shall do my level best to ensure that we can do something that is effective if that is in any way possible. I am trying to get the balance right: I do not want those hon. Members to walk out of the Chamber thinking We're okay, we've done it; there aren't any problems, but neither do I want them to walk away with the opposite view. I am trying genuinely to say that I do not want my officials or anybody else to think that this is not a serious issue that wants serious examination. If we can find ways and means of giving such useful protections, we should seek to do so.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12
	  
	Code of Practice (No. 2)

'(1) The Scottish Ministers must prepare a code of practice as to the exercise by proper persons of functions they have under this Chapter.
	(2) After preparing a draft of the code the Scottish Ministers
	(a) must publish the draft;
	(b) must consider any representations made to them about the draft;
	(c) may amend the draft accordingly.
	(3) After the Scottish Ministers have proceeded under subsection (2) they must lay the code before the Scottish Parliament.
	(4) When they have done so, the Scottish Ministers may bring the code into operation on such day as they may appoint by order.
	(5) A proper person must comply with a code of practice which is in operation under this section in the exercise of any function he has under this Chapter.
	(6) If a proper person fails to comply with any provision of a code of practice issued under this section he is not by reason only of that failure liable in any criminal or civil proceedings.
	(7) But the code of practice is admissible in evidence in such proceedings and a court may take account of any failure to comply with its provisions in determining any questions in the proceedings.
	(8) The Scottish Ministers may from time to time revise a code previously brought into operation under this section; and the preceding provisions of this section apply to a revised code as they apply to the code as first prepared.'.[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14
	  
	Performance of functions of Scottish Ministers by constables in Scotland (No. 2)

'(1) In Scotland, a constable engaged in temporary service with the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Part may perform functions, other than those specified in subsection (2), on behalf of the Scottish Ministers.
	(2) The specified functions are the functions conferred on the Scottish Ministers by
	(a) section 373(1) (production orders),
	(b) section 375(2) (entry orders),
	(c) section 379(4) (supplementary to production and entry orders),
	(d) section 380(1) (search warrants),
	(e) section 384(1) (disclosure orders),
	(f) section 389(4) (supplementary to disclosure orders),
	(g) section 390(1) (customer information orders),
	(h) section 396(4) (supplementary to customer information orders),
	(i) section 397(1) (account monitoring orders),
	(j) section 401(4) (supplementary to account monitoring orders).'.[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 338
	  
	Judges

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 198, line 17, leave out Circuit judge and insert
	'judge entitled to exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court'.[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 343
	  
	Further provisions

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 200, line 3, leave out from first material to end of line 4.
	No. 109, in page 200, line 8, leave out subsection (3).[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 349
	  
	Further provisions: general

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 204, line 17, leave out from first material to end of line 18.
	No. 110, in page 204, line 22, leave out subsection (3).[Mrs. McGuire.]

Clause 352
	  
	Disclosure orders

Amendment proposed: No. 66, in page 206, line 11, leave out or at once.[Mr. Hawkins.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We seek your ruling on an incident that has just happened, in which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) entered the Division Lobby after the doors had been closed, by going past the Tellers. I understand that he was not counted in the vote, but could you perhaps inform the House that it is not allowable for anyone to enter the Lobby by any means after the doors have been closed, and that hon. Members should be aware of that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) for having come to the Chair to confess his sin. He made an error that should not be perpetrated by hon. Members, and I assure the House that his name has not been counted in the tally that we have just heard, and that it will not be shown in the record of the vote.

Clause 356
	  
	Further provisions

Amendment made: No. 111, in page 207, line 42, leave out subsection (5).[Mr. Foulkes.]

Clause 370
	  
	Confiscation and money laundering

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 214, line 10, leave out subsection (1).
	No. 99, in page 214, line 28, at end insert
	'(8) This section does not apply to orders made in England and Wales for the purposes of a civil recovery investigation.'.[Mr. Foulkes.]

Clause 376
	  
	Further provisions

Amendment made: No. 165, in page 217, line 9, leave out from privilege to end of line 10.[Mr. Foulkes.]

Clause 408
	  
	Modifications of the 1986 Act

Amendment made: No. 100, in page 233, line 26, leave out paragraph (c) and insert
	'(c) any property in respect of which an order under section 131(3) is in force;'.[Mr. Foulkes.]

New Clause 10
	  
	Restriction on disclosure for overseas purposes (No. 2)

'(1) Section 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (restrictions on disclosure of information for overseas purposes) applies to a disclosure of information authorised by section 429(1)(a) or (b) or 433(1)(a) or (b).
	(2) In the application of section 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 by virtue of subsection (1) section 20 of that Act must be ignored and the following subsection is substituted for subsection (2) of section 18 of that Act
	(2) In subsection (1) the reference, in relation to a direction, to a relevant disclosure is a reference to a disclosure which
	(a) is made for a purpose authorised by section 429(1)(a) or (b) or 433(1)(a) or (b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
	(b) is of any such information as is described in the direction..'.[Mr. Foulkes.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

George Foulkes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 69, in clause 429, page 249, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment No. 70, in page 249, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).
	Government amendments Nos. 237 to 250, 252 and 254.

George Foulkes: I am pleased to be at the Dispatch Box, even at this late hour. I was beginning to feel a bit redundantalmost superfluous, even a supernumerary. However, I am glad that I now have the opportunity to move new clause 10.
	New clause 10 would bring the powers in clauses 429 and 433 to disclose information for the purposes of an overseas criminal investigation or overseas criminal proceedings within the scope of section 18 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Section 18 of that Act provides power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to restrict disclosure of information for overseas purposes. The power may be exercised when it appears to the Secretary of State that the overseas investigation or proceeding relates to a matter in which it would be more appropriate for any investigation to be carried out by the authorities of the United Kingdom or a third country.
	We believe that if the Secretary of State makes such a direction in respect of the bodies covered by the 2001 Act, the restriction should also apply to the director, the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Ministers when they make a disclosure in relation to overseas criminal investigations and proceedings. It would not be consistent to allow for such a disclosure to be made under the Bill, when other bodies might be prevented from disclosing information.
	The new clause specifically provides that section 18 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act applies to disclosures by the director under clause 429(1)(a) or (b) and clause 433(1)(a) or (b).
	I now come to Opposition amendments Nos. 69 and 70.

David Wilshire: Very good!

George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman, who migrates between being a Whip, a Back Bencher and a Parliamentary Private Secretaryhe is a multi-purpose Tory Membersays that the amendments are very good.

David Wilshire: Having given me three roles, would the Minister care to tell the House which one I am best at?

George Foulkes: Yes, I would. I think that he is probably best as a Back Bencher.

Alistair Carmichael: He has a better future as a Back Bencher.

George Foulkes: Indeed he does. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), as I was in Committee, for giving me the opportunity to respond more effectively.
	Clause 429(1) sets out the purposes for which the director may disclose information. Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would delete the paragraphs that would allow the disclosure of information for the purposes of a criminal investigation or for criminal proceedings, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
	When we discussed this issue in Committee, the concern was that clause 429(1)(a) and (b) would mean an increase in the powers of the law enforcement authorities, in particular that they could be passed information obtained under powers that were not available to them but were available to the director. I recall that debate, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne and others do. We said in Committee that we would reflect further on whether this concern was covered by the judicial approval that is required for the exercise of the director's powers.
	I can now tell the House that we are not convinced that there is the scope for abuse suggested in Committee, in terms of cases being referred to the director with the intention of the director using his powers for the benefit of the law enforcement agencies. There will be memorandums of understanding about the cases to be taken on by the director, and any abuse of the powers would soon become evident. The director can only act within his powers, so he can seek the part 8 orders only to help with the exercise of his functions. All these orders are subject to judicial oversightan extra safeguardand it is very unlikely that an order would be granted if it were sought for the wrong reason.
	We certainly do not agree that the director should be prevented from disclosing any information for the purposes of a criminal investigation or proceedings, which would be the effect of the amendments. That would prevent the passing of information obtained through means unavailable to the law enforcement agencies, which seems unnecessary. Buthaving, perhaps, been unhelpful to Conservative Members on that matterwe accept that there is concern that, under the Bill as it stands, information obtained by the director under a disclosure order could be disclosed to the law enforcement authorities.
	The disclosure order is a particularly far-reaching power; it is granted to the director alone, solely for use in confiscation and civil recovery investigations. We accept that there is an issue with the idea that information that the law enforcement authorities could not have obtained through the exercise of their own powers might be made available to them through disclosure by the director. We therefore propose that restrictions should be placed on the disclosure of information that the director has obtained under a disclosure order, so that it could not be disclosed for the purposes at clause 429(1)(a) and (b). I can tell the Conservative spokesman that we will consider further whether such information obtained under a disclosure order should still be disclosed for the other purposes set out at clause 429(1).
	It has not been possible in the time between Committee and Report to table an amendment to achieve this. We need, for example, to ensure that any amendment takes account of the limited uses to which information disclosed in a disclosure order can be put in criminal cases by virtue of the provisions of part 8 of the Bill. But I can assure hon. Members that we intend to table such an amendment in another place. I hope, in the light of that, that hon. Members will not press amendments Nos. 69 and 70 to a vote.
	Amendments Nos. 237 to 250, 252 and 254 all relate to how the information disclosure provisions in part 10 will operate in Scotland. I shall start with amendment No. 237 as it stands. [Laughter.] I am sorry. I was slightly distracted then. I was about to say that I was pleased to see the three hon. Members from the Scottish National party here today, as we did not see them in Committee.

Michael Weir: I am sorry that the Minister has interrupted his speech to make such a cheap shot, but I am not at all surprised. This just proves that he was quite correct to predict his redundancy at the start of his speech.

George Foulkes: How shall I respond to that? I think that I shall ignore it.
	I return to amendment No. 237, and this time I shall get it right. As it stands, clause 430 provides for the exchange of information between the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers in connection with their respective functions under parts 3 and 5 of the Bill. However, clause 433 already provides that the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers may disclose information to each other for the purposes of their functions under parts 3 and 5. As most of clause 430 is already covered by clause 433, our intention is to delete clause 430 and amendment No. 237 would achieve that.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have some sympathy with the complexity of the Minister's brief, but what just happened to him reminds me of the newsreader who announced, The time is 7 pm Greenwich. Meantime, here is the news.

George Foulkes: I am sure that I will find another, more appropriate occasion to use that.
	There is only one aspect that is not currently covered by clause 433. Clause 430 provides that the Lord Advocate can disclose to the Scottish Ministers information that he has obtained in connection with the exercise of his functions under chapter 3 of part 5 of the Bill. That chapter deals with the recovery of cash and that the procurator fiscal has a role in the initial detention of the cash. If there is not to be a criminal prosecution, the matter passes to the Scottish Ministers to consider forfeiture. It is clearly important that any information the Lord Advocate has obtained in the first stages of the cash seizure be disclosed to the Scottish Ministers so that they can consider forfeiture. Amendment No. 243 therefore adds an appropriate reference to clause 433.
	Amendments Nos. 238. 240 to 242, 244 and 245, are purely drafting amendments. I could explain what each of them does, but in view of the time that would not be sensible.
	After the intervention by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) about Sewel motions, I suddenly realised why yesterday's exchange was so unfruitful. The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the nature of Sewel motions. He seems to think that once a Sewel motion is passed, and the Scottish Parliament knows what is in the draft Bill that is agreed on Second Reading, that is that, and there can be no further changes and that once it has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, a Bill is immutable.
	Surely the whole purpose of a Sewel motion is to return to Westminster the power to legislate on devolved areas. That implies that when provisions are considered in Committee and on Report, particularly in relation to Scottish matters, amendments can be considered and, if necessary, agreed to. That is inherent in the nature of the exercise.

Alistair Carmichael: I understand the Minister's analysis of Sewel motions. Does he agree, however, that the process raises some difficulties, particularly in view of the consequences? It is important that we should not be left with unamended and improperly considered legislation. Of course amendments should be made in Committee, but that raises difficulties. Will the Minister return to the point that we need some mechanism whereby we can have proper dialogue between parliamentary scrutiny here and the Executive functions in Edinburgh?

George Foulkes: I agree. Of course there needs to be dialogue. I was saying simply that we need the flexibility to consider amendments in Committee and on Report.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister give way?

George Foulkes: I am still replying to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
	After yesterday's exchange, I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are looking again at the way in which Sewel motions work, we shall discuss it with the Scottish Executive and no doubt we shall have an opportunity to report back to the House. I hope that that will be helpful.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for giving way, but I think that it is he who misunderstood the point. If he reads the minutes of the meeting of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs last November when we discussed the matter in great detail, he will find that I made the same point that I repeated yesterdaythat if there are substantial amendments, the Bill should go back to the Scottish Parliament. The Minister agreed with me in November. I asked him yesterday when he had changed his mind and he still has not answered that question. What he is saying today does not change anything. I never argued that Westminster could not change legislation, but whether major changes should go back to the Scottish Parliament.

George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is a nitpicker even when there are no nits to pick[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to pick the nit.

George Foulkes: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall take your advice and be very careful in future.
	I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question on two previous occasions. It does not need to be answered a third time. I am glad that I made my positive and substantive points in response to a Liberal Democrat Member rather than to one of these awful interventions from the SNP.
	I invite hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 69 and 70 in view of my explanation and support new clause 10 and amendments Nos. 237 to 250, 252 and 254.

Dominic Grieve: I greatly welcome the Minister's remarks about our amendments Nos. 69 and 70 to which I shall return in a moment. I also welcome new clause 10, which provides a measure of definition about what can be disclosed for overseas purposes on a subject which caused quite a lot of anxiety in Committee, as the Minister will recollect.
	Reading the particular clause of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I am not entirely persuaded that it lays down any criteria about the danger of an exchange of information in the circumstances that we discussed in Committee, where it might be used for purposes that were highly prejudicial to the individual concerned and where, for instance, the right to a fair trial might not be obtainable. I hope that the Minister understands my point. That may be something that can properly be the subject of guidelines and codes of practice.
	I also appreciate that it is difficult for Parliament to legislate a framework that will stand the test of time. Some countries might slip in and out of the levels of acceptability that we would expect in terms of their judicial procedures, for instance, but I hope that the Minister will take on board that there is a legitimate area of anxiety that in exchanging information the director must have regard to the rights of the individual whose confidential information he is handing over to a foreign authority.
	Of course, in the desire to seize assets that is a perfectly acceptable activity, but it will not become so, and the whole framework will be brought into disrepute, if there is any suggestion that that information is not really being used for a legitimate purpose but, potentially, to persecute the individual in terms of his private wealth and finances in that country. This is a serious problem and one to which the director will have to be alive. I raise it because amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would have prevented disclosure to a foreign power in terms of criminal investigations elsewhere so it dovetails slightly with Government new clause 10. The two issues are linked and have been correctly grouped by the Clerk.
	I certainly will not press amendments Nos. 69 and 70 as the Minister has given some important assurances which I shall not repeat. He has clearly completely understood the point that was made in Committee that we are giving the director substantial powers, which in many respects appear much wider than those of any ordinary law enforcement agency. The purpose of thatas the Minister rightly saidis to seize the proceeds of crime, not to prosecute people. If a situation arises in which that information is handed over to another Government law enforcement agency for the purpose of prosecution, where that information would not have been available to it under its ordinary powers, there is an important issue.
	Although I accept the Minister's point that the way in which the legislation is framed could not make the director the poodle of that other law enforcement agencybecause the director's powers are circumscribed to the obtaining of information for his own purposes; nevertheless it is likely that in the course of obtaining information for his purposes the ARA could obtain information that might be used for the purposes of a criminal prosecution.
	I realise that that raises a difficult issue. It is legitimate for people to say that if the information shows the commission of serious crime and if it could be useful for the prosecution of an offender, it should be usedno matter how it was obtained. However, that gives rise to an important point. In those circumstances, is it proper to hand over information when Parliament has not seen fit to provide similar powers to the law enforcement agencywhich is likely to be the police or the Customsin the course of the agency's own inquiries? The guidelines will have to be considered carefully and amendments may have to be made in another place. However, mindful of the Minister's assurance, I shall not press the amendments to a vote.

Alistair Carmichael: I warmly welcome the assurances given by the Minister on the use of disclosure orders. Those provisions are especially draconian and in the case of such powers it is incumbent on the state agencies charged with their execution to do so with every care. It is also incumbent on us to circumscribe as far as possible the manner in which such powers are executed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the restrictions that he proposes and the manner in which he envisages that they will be carried out.
	I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Sewel motions. With the indulgence of the Chair, those points might be developed at slightly greater length during Third Reading, which is nearly upon us.

Ian Davidson: I want to raise a couple of points. The first relates to the passage of information to foreign regimes. There must be a balance. We need to bear in mind the fact that some foreign jurisdictions are deeply corrupt and thus cause major difficulties for people who want to combat international drug dealing and money laundering. On the other hand, we must avoid giving guilty people the opportunity of playing off one regime against another by making civil or human rights arguments. I hope that any guidelines will reflect that.
	Secondly, will the Minister clarify whether the effect of the Conservative amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would be to stop any information at allnot merely that under disclosure ordersbeing passed to the authorities? If a person had confessed to a range of offences, including murder or arson, could that information be passed to the appropriate police or judicial authorities? It would not be the case that none of it was handable overableif I may use that made-up phrase[Interruption.] I think it is a good one.
	There was an interesting discussion of Sewel motions. Did the Ministeras I didinterpret the interventions of Scottish Nationalist Members as an excuse? Thus, although we originally thought that sloth and idleness had prevented them from attending the Committee debates, in fact they did not attend because they thought that they would have the chance to deal with these matters in the Scottish Parliament. As the provisions are extremely tough, presumably any intervention hon. Members would have made would have weakened them and would have been much to be deplored.

George Foulkes: The debate has been interesting. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who spoke for the official Opposition, for his welcome. It was indicative of the way that the Bill was dealt with in Committee and on Report. As many hon. Members have said, there has been to-ing and fro-ing. I have not served on a Standing Committee for a long time

David Wilshire: That is obvious.

George Foulkes: Yes, it is very obvious. When I was last a member of a Standing Committee, a different Government were in power and we were not given nearly as many concessions or nearly as much sympathy and understanding. We shall of course take note of the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and return to them at a later stage.
	We always take into account the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). I hope that he understands that we need to exchange information to comply with our international obligations. That is clear from the framework of those obligations to which we are a signatory. We shall bear it in mind that although the disclosure of information to certain regimes would not be appropriate, it would be in the case of democratic Governments with whom we have ordinary and good relations.
	The debate has been a good one. I am glad that we were able to get to it and that we could participate so fully. As has been said on several occasions, we are deeply delighted that those SNP Members who were unable
	It being four and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [26 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 447
	  
	Orders and regulations

Amendment proposed: No. 229, in page 258, line 29, leave out or 431(6) and insert , 431(6) or 446.[Mr. Salmond.]
	The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 262.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.

New Clause 6
	  
	Enactment

'In this Act (except in section 448(1)) a reference to an enactment includes a reference to
	(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
	(b) Northern Ireland legislation.'.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As I did not have the opportunity to say the usual words at the end of the Committee stage for reasons that are understoodwe can blame nothing but the systemI should like to record my thanks to a few people at the start of the Third Reading debate. This is the first Bill for which I have had responsibility and it has been like jumping in at the deep end. I want to thank my hon. Friends for their considerable support in Committee. The outrider, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), was ever reminding me of the need for these measures and tried to ensure that I did not go soft or make them ineffective. I also thank my other hon. Friends who have considerable legal experience and brought their expertise to the Committee.
	I genuinely thank both the Opposition parties that were represented in Committee for the way in which they handled matters. We have had our differences, which I will touch on briefly, but we gave the Bill proper scrutiny and have made a number of amendments. I am enormously grateful for their work and effort. I know how hard it is to do so from the Opposition Benches and the amount of time and effort needed to give such a measure proper scrutiny. I thank my officials and the officials of the House as well.
	I should like to remind the House of the need for the Bill. The Bill is about crime. Catching criminals and putting them away is not enoughif crime is profitable, they are quickly replaced. Unless hon. Members are content to allow that situation to continue, they must support effective measures to remove the profit from crime. Recovering the money deprives crime of its working capital, increases the deterrent by taking the profit away and addresses the lack of public confidence in the rule of law.
	It is to everyone's detriment that over the years this country has been lacking in terms of recovering the proceeds of crime. The majority of offenders go through the criminal justice system with little or no attempt made to apply confiscation. Only 1,200 drug traffickers and fewer than 200 other offenders had confiscation orders made against them in 2000-01. Enforcement of confiscation orders is poor. In the same year, orders to the value of 50 million were made and receipts were only 20 million. Restraint is rarely usedabout 250 orders per annum were made. It is not available early enough, so prosecutors often wonder what on earth is the point as the money will have disappeared.
	In the absence of criminal proceedings, there is no means of challenging the possession of criminal assets, no matter how blatant or powerful the evidence. The 1999 survey of law enforcement agencies showed that 440 million of suspect assets was held by 400 individuals. If that is evenly distributed, we effectively have 400 criminal millionaires living in our midst.
	Much organised crime is still based on cash. The police are often unable to intervene when they can identify suspect cash being carried or on premises. The seizure of such cash and its forfeiture in summary civil proceedings can have a major disruptive impact. That measure is currently not available other than at borders.
	Financial investigators need more help to trace criminal proceeds and gather evidence. Customer information orders and monitoring orders will help us to even the odds in the fight that we need to carry to the criminal fraternity.
	Money-laundering regulations offer unnecessary loopholes. Defendants are hardly ever prosecuted and even when they are, acquittal rates are well above the average for many countries in similar situations.
	There is continuing evidence of slackness in the reporting of suspect transactions. Last year's report to the Financial Services Authority on the Abacha case proves the point. The UK cannot comply with a request to freeze criminal assets until criminal proceedings are imminent in the requesting jurisdiction. That factor impeded the UK's ability to assist the Nigerian Government in the Abacha case.
	Because of the powers that we are taking, we have tried to ensure that we have given sufficient concessions and safeguards. I believe that the Bill is now effective and balanced. We gave a commitment this evening to look at protecting the anonymity of staff in the Assets Recovery Agency in appropriate circumstances, as proposed by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. It will not necessarily be easy, but it is worth examining the matter seriously.
	I was surprised by the position taken by Conservatives Members, and I continue to be so. I was convinced that the Liberal Democrats would adopt the position that they did indeed adopt, but I was surprised at the position of Conservative Members, which perhaps goes to show that naivety can continue well into one's forties[Interruption.] I am talking about myself.
	I entered into our consideration of the Bill believing that the main thrust of the Conservative Opposition would be that it is not as effective as it should be and that some measures should be strengthened. I was therefore surprised by the tabling in Committee of substantive amendments that would have weakened the Bill. [Interruption.] I happily acknowledge that some of the proposals that were made in Committee were useful and potentially make the Bill more effective, easier for us to pass into law and more compliant with the European convention on human rights. However, others would have punched great holes in our confiscation and assumptions proceedings. Measures in existing legislation that were enacted when the Conservative party was in power were suddenly considered to be too draconian and in need of watering down.
	In response to debate, we have undertaken to insert the proposed list of lifestyle crimes into the Bill, retaining the power to update it from time to time by order. For unlisted offences, the Bill raises the number of convictions that are required before the burden is placed on the defendant to show how his assets are not the proceeds of crime. We are retaining the serious risk of injustice provisothe measure to which the House of Lords attached such great importance in rejecting last month's appeal on the Rezvi and Benjafield cases.

Ian Davidson: I thank the Minister for saying that, like many of us, he was surprised by how soft the Conservatives appeared to be on collaborators with crime. They consistently sought to weaken the Bill in various ways and threatened to try to get measures reversed in the House of Lords. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that the Opposition Front-Bench boss has now arrived, hopefully to keep the apprentices in order and to ensure that they support the Government more fully in future? Does he think that the shadow Home Secretary was probably unaware that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was descended from sheep and cattle thieves and therefore had a domestic interest in the matter?

Bob Ainsworth: More importantly, the shadow Home Secretary was fully aware of the position that was taken by Conservative Members on the Committee on behalf of their party, and is therefore largely responsible for it. My lips are sealed about the source of that information, and will remain so until such time as I come to write my memoirs, if I ever do. It is all part of the touchy-feely operation that the hon. Gentleman is putting in place on the Conservative Benches.

Oliver Letwin: I am most grateful to the Minister for his charming efforts to introduce me into the conversation. I hope that he can satisfy himself that he was not unduly naive. He is merely wholly misinformed about the view taken by myself and my hon. Friends about the role of a responsible Opposition. We believe that the only way in which the rule of law will be preserved is if people have sufficient confidence in our legal system, and that that will exist only if there is an appropriate balance between the rights and the protection of the innocent and the pursuit of the guilty. The Minister and I should be joined in that view.

Bob Ainsworth: I totally agree. That is exactly what we tried to achieve through the way in which we managed the Committee proceedings and listened to the genuine concerns that were raised by Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats.
	I remind the shadow Home Secretary that there are two classes of innocents. First, there are those who wind up being accused of crimes that they did not commit or who face having profits taken from them which are not the proceeds of crime. Secondly, there are the victims in our constituencies who wind up living with the consequences of money laundering, drug peddling and other organised crimes and the profits that flow from them. I sometimes feel that Conservative Members want to give that a lower priority than do I and my hon. Friends.
	I do not want to prolong the debate or to prevent any hon. Members from having an input into Third Reading. I could go through different parts of the Bill to point out the need for the measures that are being taken and to show how we have tried to ensure that they are balanced and proportionate. We have heard the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, some of which did not take into account the full balance of the issues concerned. For example, it was prepared to come down against aspects of the assumptions proceedings without fully considering the safeguards that the Bill provides. It suggested, without the support of recent case law, that the provisions on civil recovery are wrongly classified.
	We have safeguarded the traditional position of the matrimonial home in Scotland, leaving ourselves open to allegations about the regime in England and Wales. That issue was flagged up by the Human Rights Committee. However, it did not properly address the factit will have to do sothat the provision deals with the position of families who find themselves in danger of potential action against their matrimonial home as a result of measures against the proceeds of crime. Families may often find themselves in that situation during the normal course of their lives owing to debts or loss of work.
	I shall draw my conclusions to a close. I hope that we have sent the Bill to another place in a better state. I am pleased that we received so much support for many of its provisions. I sincerely hope that we can all look back many years from now with a degree of satisfaction that the measures have been effective and have made a difference. In Committee we looked back at comments made by Home Office Ministers of many years ago about the effectiveness of the measures that they were introducing. In many cases, we have had years of experience of seeing that they have not been effective. We bring our democratic process into disrepute if we introduce measures that promise effective action on things that are important to the people we represent which are not capable of delivering the change that is expected. I hope that we have made the Bill sufficiently effective so that it makes a difference and so that we can be pleased with our role in bringing it into effect.

Dominic Grieve: I echo the thanks extended by the Minister. I had a brief opportunity in Committee to thank the officials of the House and the civil servants who helped us, but I should like to repeat that tonight and in addition thank all hon. Members who participated in the Committee, not just my hon. Friends. I was mindful that throughout the proceedings the Minister and the Minister of State, Scotland Office, went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that our concerns were properly addressed and, if they were thought to be legitimate, acted on. Above all, there was the spirit of co-operation that I had hoped for when I said on Second Reading that our conduct in Committee might be a model of its kind. I am aware that we did not always get things rightcertainly the guillotine sometimes came down at the wrong timebut there was an effort to ensure proper scrutiny. I hope that the Bill has been improved as a consequence.
	I assure the Minister that we are at one on the key issues. We know why the Bill is needed. We understand the pernicious problem of criminality which, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has made clear many times, affects the poor much more than the wealthy. It destroys communities, especially in respect of drugs, and the most disadvantaged are usually at a greater risk of the predatory activities of those who make money from crime. We are mindful of that and have no hesitation in believing that the Bill is necessary and desirable. Indeed, as the Minister acknowledged, the genesis of many of the measures that we have considered was under Conservative Governments.
	It is equally clear that during our deliberations on this enormous Bill, which now stands at 450 clauses, we changed what had been an add-on to the normal criminal justice system into an administrative law system for the confiscation of criminals' assets. At no time should an Opposition be more resolute in its defence of civil liberties and the rights of the individual than when the state takes upon itself, for whatever good reason, such enormous extra powers. I make no apology for the fact that in Committee we spent our time probing, asking and trying to understand what the Bill's consequences might be in practice, and making suggestions when we thought that it could be improved.
	I disagree entirely with the Minister on one thing: the Bill's efficacy in seizing the assets of criminals would not have been reduced one iota had he accepted the amendments that we pressed to a Division. He might care to reflect on that if he re-reads the amendments. I am prepared to concede, however, that if the Bill is properly administeredfor which the Executive and the director of the Assets Recovery Agency will have a great responsibilitysome of the fears that are reflected in our amendments may not be realised. I distinctly hope that they will not be. We have tried to ensure throughout the process that the framework provides a balance between the desire to seize assets and the civil rights of individuals, not just those from whom the assets are to be seized, but the third parties, be they spouses, children, partners, business associates or, in some cases, innocent bystanders who are caught by the procedures.
	The Bill has undoubtedly been improved. I thank the Minister for the amendments tabled on Report. They ensure that the problem of legal professional privilege, which was overlooked in some parts of the Bill, has been properly addressed. The restrictions on disclosure of information to foreign Governments, which the Minister has undertaken to consider further, are important because some Governments have mixed motives when they decide to pursue individuals for assets and do not have the standards of probity that we enjoy in this country. The provisions on confiscation increase the duties of the director to provide information in cases of injustice. That went a long way to meeting many of our concerns in Committee.
	That said, anxieties remain and the Minister will forgive me if I highlight them as a reminder. We need to be sure that part 2 offers adequate protection to prevent injustice. The lack of safeguards in respect of families, spouses and children pains me, and the amendments that we tabled yesterday in that regard were modest. A similar system exists in Scotland, and Scottish MPseven those on the Government Bencheshave made no attempt to gainsay it or to get rid of it, which suggests that it provides good protection. I hope that, even at this late stage, that issue might be reviewed in another place. The law can be very hard, and tempering such harshness is one of our responsibilities as parliamentarians.
	I am also concerned about compensation. I heard what the Minister had to say on that, but because compensation will be available only in cases of serious default, and not of negligent default, those who are wrongly taken through a process and subsequently found blameless will be obstructed in their efforts to recover any resulting consequential losses. Perhaps that issue should be examined further.
	On civil recovery, we need to consider compensation for third parties in respect of the actions of receivers. I find it difficult to understand why we cannot require the director, before initiating proceedings, to have reasonable grounds for believing that there are assets to be recovered. It has struck me throughout that that modest measure would provide reassurance and remind the director of his duty. Is it not the responsibility of Members of Parliament to remind those who execute its authority of where their duty lies? If we do not do that, nobody else will.
	Although the part of the Bill that deals with money laundering is undoubtedly one of the most importantindeed, I hope that it will reap great dividendsonerous duties and requirements are, as the Minister knows, nevertheless being placed on law-abiding and blameless individuals who seek through their work in the financial and regulated sector to help others in a perfectly proper way. I am sure that they will wish to shoulder those burdens cheerfully, but it is sometimes difficult to do that when a sword of Damocles is hanging over one's head, and one slip after a bad nighthowever innocuous or innocentcould lead to a five-year prison sentence. That is one aspect of the Bill that has given me particular cause for concern.
	On the part of the Bill dealing with international matters, it is absolutely vital, as I have said, that the system of co-operation be transparent. First, the House must be aware of what is being done, which gives rise to the question of affirmative and negative resolutionswe did not have time to discuss them todayand the framework established by Order in Council. Secondly, there should be some monitoring of the way in which the system works, to ensure that foreign Governments do not use it for unintended purposes. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected against foreign Governments who may not have our standards.
	That said, I congratulate the Minister on his Bill. He has handled it cheerfully, skilfully, with good humour andI am satisfiedwith the best of intentions. In that regard, I am also satisfied that the Government's intentions are transparently honest and correct, and that the aspiration that underpins the Bill is worthy. For that reason, we give it our support, mindful that it may be possible to reconsider and correct in another place some of the aspects that I have touched on, and which continue to give us some cause for anxiety. On that basis, we welcome the legislation and give it our support.

Paul Stinchcombe: I, too, welcome the Bill, and I do so warmly. I believe that it could lead to a sea change in the fight against acquisitive crime. For that reason, I was delighted to serve on the Standing Committee. I am pleased to have been able to participate in the debates on Report, and I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to make a brief contribution on Third Reading.
	Throughout our deliberations, we have heard much from Tory Members about their concerns for human rights and the need to ensure that the Bill properly reflects the Human Rights Act 1998 and properly respects the European convention on human rights. I share some of their concerns, as I made clear in Committee, but I would give greater credence to the arguments that have come from their mouths if any of them had voted for the Human Rights Act in the first place. Many Conservative Members vehemently oppose that Act. At least one of them supported it, but he did not have the courage to vote for itthe hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has led for the Opposition in the debates on the Bill.
	I spoke in favour of the Human Rights Act 1998, and I voted for it. If called upon, I will vote for this Bill, and I would do so for an identical series of reasons. I genuinely and passionately care about human rights. I believe that they should be protected against violation, but that the most important of our fundamental human rights is not the right to protect the secrecy that surrounds our dodgy deals, but the right to live free from fear and free from crime. The Bill will do more than virtually any other measure that has been enacted while I have been a Member to tackle our fear of crime and protect that fundamental human right.
	In the past two months, I have visited an old lady in my constituency whose skull had been caved in during broad daylight by a young thug with a golf club. I was visited by another elderly lady whose arm had been broken when a bag was wrenched from it, again in broad daylight. I have talked to the police about a phone call received in the evening from an eight-year-old boy who was concerned because his father had been marched upstairs at gunpoint.
	Why do my constituentsin middle England, in Northamptonshiresuffer from such crime and why do they live in such fear? I believe that it is because 10 per cent. of the young adults in my constituency from some of the estates are addicted to drugs, because heroin is available at 5 a wrap, because crack cocaine is now found in my constituency, because of the needles that I can find everywhere and because many of my constituents have to steal to feed those habits. We have made it harder for them to burgle, so they have now taken to street crime.
	It is imperative that, in the House as well as elsewhere, we do everything that we can to fight that crime and street violence. We have to do so in many waysby getting more policemen on the beat, by intelligent policing and probably by using more taggingbut we also have to tackle the drug trade itself, and we have to do so at both ends: the supplier and the user. As for the users, I want more to be done about drugs rehabilitation than we have ever tried to do, especially in prison. As for the suppliers, I want the profit to be taken out of crime, so that they cannot make their millions, or even their thousands, by peddling their filth and ruining the lives of innocent people. The Bill will help to tackle that, which is why I welcome it so warmly.

Norman Baker: Parliament has dealt with the Bill in an exemplary fashion. If it were to approach other Bills similarly, we might all end up with better reputations outside the House than we probably collectively have at present. May I pass on my thanks to the staff and officers of the House for their help with the Bill? I also thank the Minister, who has been willing to respond to legitimate points. He has been polite and cheerful throughout and has been the sort of Minister whom one would hope to be responsible for a Bill.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman in particular has given the Bill a great deal of his time and raised a number of legitimate issues, and the Bill is better as a consequence of some of the amendments that he moved. I also thank my own colleagues, of course, including my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has kept me busy and otherwise helped me during the debates on the Bill.
	I also pay tribute to Labour Members, who raised legitimate issues and took a real interest in the Bill. I particularly mention the hon. Members for Redcar (Vera Baird) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who managed to raise issues about which the Government did not necessarily want to hear, but did so in a constructive way that was loyal to their party. It is not always easy to strike that balance, and that should be recognised.
	My colleagues and I have always supported the principle of the Bill. I do not think that there will be a Division on Third Reading, but if there is we shall support the Bill. We support its principle because it takes the profit out of crime. I bear in mind the fact that two thirds of crime is motivated by profit, and that we must ensure that crime does not pay. That very old slogan needs some teeth, and this Bill gives it teeth. We are much better at convicting people than at depriving them of their ill-gotten gains. If the Bill goes some way to addressing that, it will have achieved a great deal. If we follow the money, we will end up getting the criminal, and that is a welcome change from traditional methods of approaching such matters.
	The principle of the Bill is agreed, so proceedings in Committee were largely about detailor, perhaps, tensions. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to some areas of concern, some of which I share and others I am less concerned about. I have identified four tensions that I will take to my colleagues in the Lords as areas of difficulty.
	The first tension is the key one: the balance to be struck between the power of the state and the rights of the individual. The Bill undoubtedly contains several heavy weapons to try to deal with serious crime committed by very clever people who may have expensive lawyersor whatever the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) wants to attribute to themand have escaped the traditional methods of justice and existing law. We must deploy heavy weapons against those people. I recognise that, even if it causes some trepidation. The other side of that coin is that we need strong shields to ensure that the innocent are not swept up in the process.
	As the Minister said, there is more than one kind of innocent person. There are innocent people who are the victims of crime, about whom we rightly heard from the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Glasgow, Pollok. Innocent third parties can be swept up unwittingly and unfairly by such heavy legislation unless there are safeguards to enable them to escape it legitimately.
	There are also those who are guilty of negligence, who we do not want to treat the same as those who are guilty of deliberately seeking to launder money. Both are problems, but they are not on the same scale. We need to ensure that there are shields for the innocent and that the penalties for those who are guilty of lesser crimes are not the same as those for major crimes.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to the loss of the family home, which was discussed yesterday on Report. That brings me to the second tension that was evident during our proceedings in Committee: that between what happens north and south of the border. In the case of the family home, the Bill is very much Scotland 1, England 0, which cannot be right.

Alex Salmond: Is that a full-time result?

Norman Baker: It is a half-time result, as the Bill is yet to go to the other placebut the score may stay that way. How can it be right for a spouse to lose her home if she lives in Berwick but not if she lives in Galashiels? That worries me.
	Differences between legislation north and south of the border are inevitable. Indeed, I am a keen supporter of devolution, as are all my colleagues. We recognise and rejoice in the fact that there are differences north and south of the border, but I prefer the differences to occur in matters of policy and priority rather than in essential justice. The example of the loss of the home is a matter of essential justice. I regret that we have a different solution in Scotland from that in England.
	There have of course been moves to eliminate such differences. As the Minister will remember, it was proposed that courts in Scotland have discretionary power to make confiscation orders although such power was mandatory in England and Wales. That has now been evened upthe wrong way, in my view. It is a pity that the evening up did not go the other way, with the Scottish model imported into England.
	The third tension is between those who legislateusand those who interpret the law, namely the judiciary. As we have gone through the Bill, I have asked to what extent it is legitimate for Parliament to constrain the judiciary. Parliament has a right and a duty to legislate, and courts have a duty to interpret. The courts are an important backstop to ensure justice. In the past century, we find instances in which the courts have intervened to protect justice when Parliament has got it wrong; juries, too, have acted in that way. We can all think of cases that have led to changes in the law. The judiciary is an important feature of our democracy and it must be given the elbow room it needs to perform that function.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok made it plain in Committee that he does not trust the judges. His solution, without wanting to put it too crudely, was as far as possible to write them out of the script in terms of the scope available to them for interpretation. As he does not trust the judiciary in its current form, he wants judges to be servants of Parliament, but that is a dangerous road to take. I agree that there is a need for reform in the legal system, but that is an entirely different proposition from cutting them out of the script altogether.
	That is one of the reasons why throughout proceedings on the Bill my colleagues and I have been keen to ensure that the judiciary is not written out of the script, and that judges are given the appropriate flexibility to interpret the law. That is why attempts were made to amend clause 6 to give the courts greater flexibility of action. The clause starts: The . . . Court must proceed. Many wanted to replace must with may, and the Liberal Democrats suggested inserting normally after must. On Report, a further attempt was made to qualify the provision and give the courts elbow room to act if they detected a real risk of injustice.
	The Government were not keen on those amendments or on providing elbow room. I think that they should adopt a more relaxed attitude and realise that it is in their long-term interests not to constrain the judiciary too tightly, as they tend to do throughout the Bill. Their motives are of the best, but I conclude that ultimately the right balance has not been struck between the two elements.
	The fourth tension is between the needperceived and actualfor the far-reaching heavy measures in the Bill and the requirements of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. I am happy to concede that Government Members are as keen on the Act as I am, and that they acknowledge that it was a big step forward and is an important part of this country's legislation. I am glad that the Minister referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, if only to disagree with it, because it shows that he recognises the importance of responding to the issues that the Committee raises.
	Incidentally, the report with which the Minister disagrees was agreed by all members of that Committee representing all three main parties and both Houses of Parliament. That does not mean that the report is necessarily right, but there is a substantial body of opinion, which includes hon. Members present tonight, that the recommendation and the wording of the report were appropriate. There will always be tension, but it is important that the Government pay proper attention to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights says. The Government themselves created that important body and its words should be heeded.
	I am not sure that the Minister entirely understood or accepted my point that there is an absolute requirement that each Bill introduced by the Government be consistent within itself with the Human Rights Act. On the front of the Bill was a statement that it is so consistent and that its provisions are compatible with convention rights. The Minister will remember that the Committee learned that the clause headed Requirements for making of production order, originally clause 335, replicated provisions within the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, but without the Act's public interest protection provisions. The explanatory notes to the Bill said that that was because judges are required to act in a way that is compatible with the convention, and that the public interest protection provisions were therefore no longer necessary. That is a fundamental point. Those public interest protection clauses should have been included in the Bill, irrespective of the existence of the Human Rights Act.

Bob Ainsworth: The area on which we disagreedor on which I failed to understand the hon. Gentlemanwas in relation to his apparent insistence that it was not good enough for us to say that this measure in no way cuts across people's rights under the European convention on human rights. Even when we said that, it was not good enough for him.

Norman Baker: If that is the opinion that the Minister formed, I am happy to clarify matters, as the Secretary of State for Transport, local Government and the Regions might have said in one of his illuminating statements. If the measure itself does not cut across the Human Rights Act, of course it is compatible with it. However, if the mirroring safeguards that would have been included in legislation previously are not included in this Bill, it will have fewer safeguards, by definition, because of the existence of the Human Rights Act.
	I shall not take very much longer, as other hon. Members want to contribute. I shall just raise one other point that I raised on Second Readingwhich I do not think has been dealt with since by me or anyone elseabout the hierarchy. Throughout the Committee, the Minister clearly explained how the hierarchy would work and gave several assurances for which I was grateful and which the Committee accepted. However, my one residual concern relates to the situation in which somebody is charged with a criminal offence and acquitted, and the lesser methodcivil recoverykicks in. The danger would be that, in the case of a high-profile acquittal, the public at largewho would not understand the hierarchical systemwould view such recovery as persecution of an individual. That poses dangers to the credibility of the Bill.
	If such a conclusion were reached, the authorities might in turn be encouraged to engage in the equivalent of plea bargainingwhich nobody in this place wantsand to opt immediately for civil recovery rather than a criminal charge. Of course, the threshold for civil recovery is lower than it is for a criminal charge, so that option will be tempting. In the same way, authorities sometimes pursue the charge of driving without due care and attention rather than the charge of dangerous driving.
	Overall, however, this is a good Bill, and Liberal Democrats are pleased to support it. We wish it well in the Lords and we shall table one or two amendments to deal with residual matters of concern. I thank the Minister for the considerate and helpful way in which he has ensured the progress of this Bill.

Ian Davidson: The Minister said that this was his first time piloting a Bill in Committee. He was not nearly as bad as we expected for an ex-Whip seeking to rejoin the human race. He was perhaps over-keen, on occasion, to compensate for his previous form. Nevertheless, he conducted himself with good humour throughout the Committee, as did most hon. Members. I was frequently phoned by the press, who asked for a list of members of the Committee broken down by age and sex. I replied, All of them. That was a fairly easy response, but still a good one.
	In relation to the Opposition parties, it is worth while to remark that there were three Liberal Members on the Committee, but they were never present at the same time. I wonder how many other people noticed that. Even tonight, there are only two of them, and one is sitting on the Front Bench and the other is behind him. That demonstrates their addiction to questions of hierarchy.

Alistair Carmichael: The reason why there were only ever two of us was thatnotwithstanding the difference in the numbers of Liberal Democrat Members and Labour Membersthe sheer force of our arguments, if we had all been present, would have been overwhelming. Although the hon. Gentleman may not have raised many issues in Committee, he raised a number of laughs. Regardless of what his colleagues have said about him, I always thought that he was okay.

Ian Davidson: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman speaks on that point. He told us earlier that his 11-year-old son was cutting his first teeth. Children always use an especially hard type of stone in Orkney and Shetland for such purposes.
	I see that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) has rejoined us. It is interesting that after many absences in Committee he has obviously been told to stay away, which seems eminently sensible. He spent much time in Committee signing his books. I understand that he had not completed colouring in some of them. He was sent away for Ugandan conversations at one stage. Given that he is a Member who has newspapers to sell, it is understandable that he was not always in Committee. I find myself hurrying past Big Issue sellers in case it is the hon. Gentleman

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Despite the general appreciation of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, we should return to Third Reading.

Ian Davidson: You are correct, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We would have had a much better political exchange in Committee had nationalist Members served on it. As they did not volunteer, that obviously was not possible.

Alex Salmond: I have recently been studying some figures. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has spoken more in the past two days than he has spoken in the Chamber since the last general election. That is remarkable. I want to apologise to him, because yesterday I implied that his participation record in the Chamber was miserable. That is not true. The figures show that it is not miserable; it is just not very good. He is 27th out of 55 in the activity rate among Scottish Back Benchers, which I suppose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Third Reading.

Alex Salmond: In consideration of the Bill that is before us, and others, the hon. Gentleman's activity rate is just above relegation level.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Ian Davidson.

Ian Davidson: I am aware that we are on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it would be inappropriate for me to say that even though my record in the Chamber might not be particularly good, I still have a better voting record than that of the older nationalists on the Bill and on other issues.
	One of the strengths of the Committee was that a range of views were expressed by Labour Members. The Labour party that I joined was a broad church, and that was a good thing. One of the things that has caused me most unhappiness about new Labour is the way in which it has sought to narrow the range of acceptable opinions.
	The Tories have stressed their support for the Bill on Third Reading, but words are cheap. There were many occasions in Committee when they procrastinated and deliberately spun out discussion so that some clauses were not reached. It was made absolutely clear that those parts of the Bill could be dealt with in another place.
	We must see what the Conservatives seek to do to the Bill in the other place. They will be judged by their actions there. There is a real danger that they will try substantially to weaken the Bill, which will be to the detriment of our people.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Davidson: I give way to the Member for sheep stealing.

Dominic Grieve: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to suffer from the paranoia that starts to infect Governments after their first term. It is uncharacteristic of him to have succumbed because he has always been rather semi-detached. I can assure him that consideration in another place will be as constructive as we have tried to make it in this place.

Ian Davidson: If that were true, I would welcome that. I recognise that there are still some issues that would benefit from some rubbing and polishing, but that has not been the impression that I have gained from Conservative Members in Committee. We shall see.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, no matter how ameliorative he was in Committee, will not be prepared, in enthusiasm to get the Bill through Parliament, to accept from the other place things that we were not prepared to accept in Committee or in the Chamber.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman spoke about procrastination. I remember an occasion in Committee when he caused a series of Divisions entirely on his own, to the astonishment and horror of his Whip. Was that part of his crusade against the nationalists, or something to do with procrastination?

Ian Davidson: No, that was nothing to do with procrastination. It was a result of the operation of the Sewel motion and the fact that we were unable to debate some clauses dealing with Scotland because the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues had spent so much time on earlier clauses spinning out the debate. I do not remember whether they spun out an entire part of the Bill or just a day's debate, but they clearly wasted timethe Whip intervened on several occasions to keep things goingwith the deliberate intention of preventing us from reaching some provisions applying to Scotland. I made my point reasonably well by forcing a number of votes. For the benefit of those who were not in Committee, it is fair to say that I lost them all, but that was not a surprise.
	This is not the end of the road. We must consider implementation. I very much welcome the new unit that is to be established in Scotland and the announcement made by the Minister of State, Scotland Office. We must make sure that we have adequate resources for the police specialist units and the professional help being provided to them and to the Procurator Fiscal Service.
	If we are to have confidence in the legal system in Scotland and in England and Wales, we need to tackle its modernisation as a matter of urgency. I recognise that that is an area in which there are substantial vested interests and where there is producer domination. However, if we genuinely want the modernisation of our society, we cannot just be hard on soft targets. We must be hard on some of the real vested interests.
	I was asked earlier whether I wanted to reflect on my view of lawyers and the law. Yes, I probably do. On a number of occasions, I was not nearly hard enough. The more people bring me examples of the sort of behaviour to which I object in the law, the more I believe that more hon. Members should take up these issues in the interests of our constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) expressed more eloquently than I could the motivation behind my participation in the debate on the Bill in the House and in Committee. It has been a long slog, but I believe that if hon. Members representing areas such as mine are not prepared to put a substantial effort behind measures such as the Bill, we do a disservice to our constituents.
	We must protect those whose lives are cursed by drugs and crime in their communities. I have mentioned several times before, and I make no apology for mentioning again, the families who are unable to go out together for an evening or at any other time because they are afraid to leave their house unoccupied. We must take action against the society that allows that to continue. I hope that the Bill goes some way towards creating a better Scotland and a better Britain.

Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. My interest was sparked many years ago when I brought to the attention of the then Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Kenneth Newman, a scam using stocks and shares to pass money to terrorist groups. It took some years before anything began to happen.
	I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). When a previous discussion was going on, my erstwhile colleague Enoch Powell expressed concern that we were interfering too much with civil liberties. However, the harsh reality of life is that society has changed dramatically. On behalf of my colleagues on the Select Committee, I express our thanks to the Minister for the reception that he gave our report, and to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for his kind words.
	For far too long, law enforcement bodies have not worked together. The Bill should help them to move together. It is amazing how long it is since income tax legislation brought Al Capone to justice. It is also amazing how often we fail to realise that various law enforcement officers must come together to make a difference.
	In that context, I should like to say something about lifestyle. A glazier who was doing some work in my office said to my secretary one day, What is going on in this world? I am driving an old banger and doing my best to make an honest living, but I saw one of those godfathers driving into the petrol station the other day in a Mercedes. Fascinatingly enough, the papers began to refer to such lifestyles, and we saw the same person who drove the Mercedes pay tribute to his financial adviser, who helped him to invest wisely, although he earned only 3 a week in his prison days. I have yet to find out who that financial adviser is; I could do with him.
	Lifestyle means something. On reclamation of income tax, 10 million has already been restored through the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic to the Treasurymoney that would never otherwise have been lifted in income tax. Some 20 million is waiting to be dealt with; it must be done legally and appeal methods can be involved. None the less, the reclamation of that money is a reflection of what is going on in our society.
	I welcome the movement that the Bill represents and I wish it speed through the other House, although I also welcome the fact that the Government will have the opportunity that has been given to successive Governments, whatever their hue, to be made wiser by the second opinions given in that place. I look forward to improvements being made. In Northern Ireland, the Bill is not only about terrorisma subject to which some people keep returningbut about a whole change in our society. When we consider the courts, I think about the problem of drug pushers and other criminals in Ballymena, who are brought to the courts and remanded on bail so they can go out and make enough money to pay any fine that is imposed. While the judiciary must be careful in sentencing, it must realise that its job is not only to see that the law is not administered in a draconian way, but to ensure that the victims are protected.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for his speech. What happened in his Province today is an example of why we need to tackle the proceeds of crime. The people of Northern Ireland know full well what happens with such proceeds in terms of terrorism and intimidation, and I should like to thank him personally for his contribution.
	In giving my own thoughts and feelings, I shall keep my remarks as short as possible. The Bill is a 301-page document with 450 clauses and nine schedules, so I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Committee stage was a long slog. It seemed more like 139 steps than like 39. While I might not have the same experience as other hon. Membersespecially those in the legal professionI have always tried to put victims first. I make no apology for that; the criminals will always be second. The people who perpetrate crime will always have to be taken care of, and I see the Bill as a way of ensuring that that happens: it is a start in allowing us to attack the Mr. Bigs, the money men; or, for that matter, the Mrs. BigsI do not want to be sexist.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is in his place. He gave a good example of the way in which the official Opposition have conducted themselves throughout the Committee stage and in this debate. In Committee, he tried to justify the money laundering of the City of London. At one stage, he actually said We need the money in London; otherwise it will just go somewhere else.

Mark Field: rose

John Robertson: I would be very disappointed if the hon. Gentleman did not wish to intervene at this point.

Mark Field: I think that I have made it clear, as has the Minister, that it is crucial to the City of London that we should not be seen as a soft touch in terms of money laundering or any of the other problems raised in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman rightly puts his constituents' interests first. The City of London is part of my constituency, and it is right for me at least to put the arguments against the problems of over-regulation and over-compliance, which are important to exporters. I do not suggest that those arguments should override all those advanced by the hon. Gentleman, but they should at least be heard.

John Robertson: If those in the City of London and people like them had put their house in order in the past, I would not be attacking the hon. Gentleman now. I feel, as do the police and the Drug Enforcement Agencywhich I mentioned earlierthat such people must be brought to book. Lawyers have rules, and they have not stuck to them.
	I will not attack lawyers and bankers, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson)I certainly could not do it as well as he didbut, as I have said, these people must be brought to book. They seem to feel that they can turn a blind eye to the passage of illegal money through their hands. It is nothing to do with them; they are just doing their job, and they are well paid. No one can tell me that a lawyer in such circumstances does not know that someone is making a living from a criminal lifestyle. I am sorry to say this, but lawyers are not going to the police and telling them about such people. Indeed, lawyers defend them and get them off when they knew fine well from the outset that they were guilty as sin.
	The Liberals, who may be described as the unofficial Opposition

Norman Baker: The effective Opposition.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman would say that, wouldn't he? Anyway, the Liberals are very nice men. Unfortunately, criminals just love very nice men. I know that their hearts are in the right place, because they told me so, but they cannot sit on the fence for ever. They will become sore after a while if they do. We know that: we tried it for long enough.
	May I say a word about the nationalists? I will not say anything about a Committee on which they did not sitand I mentioned the fact that they did not ask to sit on itbecause I would be ruled out of order if I did. I will say, however, that it is a pleasure to see them tonight. I am glad that they made an input todayI thinkbut whether it was effective is another matter. The leader-in-waiting made a slight input, but it was so slight that I will not even mention it.
	The Committee stage was excellent. We had some fun. Members on both sides acted in good faith, for what they believed to be right. It just so happens that we are right and Opposition Members are wrong.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful for the chance of intruding a few comments into the dying moments of the debate. I take my leave of the Bill in the immortal words of Geoffrey Howe, who referred to
	the tragic conflict of loyalties with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long.[Official Report, 13 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 465.]
	My loyalties are divided, as are my instincts, following 39 fun-filled sittings.
	I have listened with great care to the passionate and sincere speeches of the two Glasgow Members. They plainly want to devise a Bill that creates a great money-extorting machine that will put every criminal inside it and squeeze them until the last bawbeeif I have the right termdrops from their pockets. I want to say how sincerely I agree with them in that ambition. I have listened to the hon. Members and I think that they are right, although I sometimes think that the landscape of Glasgow that they portray is a trifle too depressing. Not a single innocent sunbed-owner, and not a single innocent suntansave, perhaps, that mantling the brow of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollokescapes their attention. None the less, I share their general prejudice against the criminals who inflict great misery on people not only in their constituencies but in those of all hon. Members, including my own.
	It has been a privilege and an education for me to listen to the Ministers and to the many learned and distinguished Labour and Liberal Members, all of whom have shown remarkable command of their subject. I have also been profoundly impressedof course, I would say this, but I mean itby the wisdom and humanity of our own Front-Bench Members. It became clear to me as our deliberations went on that, no matter how vehemently we agree with the ends, it is our duty as conscientious legislators sometimes to dissent from the means, particularly if the means that we are advocating will frustrate the very ends that we have in view.
	Let me risk the disapproval of some of the most learned Labour Members by trying to grasp this great Bill by its fundamentals. I shall not dwell on the minor points, but a problem still extant in the Bill is that some foreign Governments could decide that the legitimate property of London Bond Street salerooms was the proceeds of crime. I am thrilled to see that the Home Secretary has arrived at this critical point, and I hope that he will address his vast brain to this question. It is still a problem that those salerooms could be the object of the jealousy of a rapacious foreign Government who might want to repatriate an artefactan image resembling the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), perhapson the ground that it resembled Hammurabi, for instance. They might contend that it had been stolen by some British archaeologist in the 1920s.
	I shall leave those concerns on one side, however, and pass on to the guts of the Bill. I want to put an end to the Minister's perplexity by explaining what the Conservatives were trying to do during the 39 Committee sittings. We were right to take the line that we did, not because we want to water the Bill down, but because we want it to work. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the Bill appears to mean, in a nutshell, that if a convicted criminalwho could have been convicted of anythingcan be shown, under the nebulous terms of clause 75, to have a criminal lifestyle, the court must order the confiscation of their assets unless they can show that they are not the proceeds of crime.
	That is a terrifyingly powerful engine for getting money out of criminals. I can see why the eyes of Labour Members glitter when they contemplate it. All I can say is that there seems to be a risk, in some of the language, that the measure could be used not just against the Mr. Bigswhom we all opposebut against the innocent, such as the relatives of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke so movingly, and the mulesthe victims of the drugs trade who are more likely to end up in the hands of the police.
	Time after time, Conservative Members have tried to ensure that the rights of the innocent are protected. That is not, as I have said, because we want to attenuate the Bill, but because we want to make it more legally robust and more successful. Unless the Bill is intelligently and humanely drafted, it will fail in its objective. It will net no assets, and all the glitter and excitement in the eyes of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok and his friends will be frustrated, and they will be disappointed.
	I shall give an example of what I mean. As the Minister knows, in 2000, the courts convicted one Robert McIntosh. I think that he was from Glasgow; he might even have been a constituent of one of the hon. Members here tonight. He was a very bad manhe is a very bad man; I think that I can say that without fear of contradiction. He was a drugs dealer and the court ordered 18,000 of his assets to be confiscated. The money was confiscated, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Scotland because it involved the assumption, without any proof, that those assets were the proceeds of crime. That is exactly the way in which we are formulating the Bill and it will be a great shame if it fails to net the assets that we all want because, as the Scottish Appeal Court found, that means of the state getting its hands on the proceeds of crime conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Bob Ainsworth: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been recent case law, particularly in the case of Rezvi, that has upheld the use of the assumptions in confiscation and not just in drug money.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for that important clarification. I am of course aware of it, but I have only to look around the Chamber tonight to see legal brains of the kind of rarity and skill that could easily use the Human Rights Act 1998 to frustrate the very purposes that we have been trying to advance day in, day out and week in, week out during our consideration of the Bill.
	In conclusion, the Bill has been improved by the efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House, to protect the rights of the innocent because that is the way to make it

John Robertson: A juggernaut.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman said that it should be a juggernaut, but the problem with a juggernaut is that it tends to crush the innocent and the guilty alike. It would be much better if the Bill were transformedand I think that it has beeninto a subtle and relentless octopus that picks the pockets of the guilty alone.

Ian Davidson: Would it be helpful if I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that although the McIntosh case was overturned by the Scottish Appeal Court, the conviction was finally upheld by the Privy Council?

Boris Johnson: I am more than grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I think that I have already addressed it. Nor am I sure whether what he says is accurate. In fact, I think that he is trying to spoil my conclusion by making things up on the spur of the moment.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend may have been confused by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) talking about the Privy Council when he may have meant the House of Lords. Does my hon. Friend agree with the words of a distinguished former Member, Sir Alan Herbert, also a journalist and distinguished playwright? He said:
	As far as I am concerned, Scotland can govern itself for ever, but I hope the Scots never govern us. I have come back from one week-end in Scotland, and I must say that I found that there the laws were more barbarous in some respects than any laws which I expected to exist in these islands.[Official Report, 9 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1945.]

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very good point.
	In conclusion, let the Bill be a subtle and relentless octopus, not a juggernaut which crushes the innocent and guilty alike. I think that we have done a good job in ensuring that and I hope that the other place will continue our work.

Ian Lucas: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who is glancing at his watch. Clearly, he wants to go and put The Spectator to bed and I am sure that he will do it very well.
	I want to make two brief points. The first is about the process. I speak as a new Member who was elected last June. Somewhat to my surprise, I have been impressed by the process and the way in which the Bill has proceeded. The main reason for that is that there was excellent input from all members of the Committee on which I was proud to serve. Everyone expressed their views freely and sincerely. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who has worked extremely hard on the Bill. Today, I was amazed to see the hon. Gentleman lose his rag for the first time, when he was baited by Scottish National Members. I did not believe that that would ever happen, but he was pushed to that extent.
	I have been impressed by the way that the Bill has proceeded. The measure is important and goes to the heart of what may be the major problem facing this country. I hope that, when Labour Members talked about the communities that they represent, Opposition Members learned more about those communities than they knew before the introduction of the Bill. I suspect that they have done so.
	The official Opposition and the other Opposition have also helped by tabling amendments so that the Bill is better than it was on Second Reading. We all agree about that.
	One continuing misapprehension about the Bill is that it contains no safeguards. I confess that I am a former lawyer so I instinctively followed some of the arguments made by Opposition Front-Bench Members. However, I have studied the Bill closely and it includes an extraordinary number of safeguards. Some of the drafting has not assisted in understanding the measure, but the Bill strikes the right balance. Balance is the key word. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to tension. That is present throughout the Bill.
	A strong voice has spoken from the Chamber and from the Committeea voice that represents people in the communities afflicted by the serious problems associated with drugs. As politicians we must speak out for those communities. The people who must listen to us are in the other placeespecially the lawyers who will regard the Bill in a certain way. I suffered from that disease in the past, but as a new politician I have learned that I have a responsibility to look at legislation differentlyin a way that reflects the problems and fears in the community that I represent. That voice will not be represented in the other place, but it is important that Members in that place hear from us about these grave matters and are assured that we have considered the Bill closely and that it must be taken forward.
	The Bill is already having an effect. I am sure that my very hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) will be delighted to know that two or three weeks ago the front page of the Law Society Gazette warned lawyers to be on their guard because the Proceeds of Crime Bill was on its way.

Annabelle Ewing: I join hon. Members in supporting the Bill's Third Reading. We were happy to join the Government in the Division Lobby to support them on various issues during the past two days. It is clear that strong measures are needed to tackle the serious problems associated with drugs and other organised crime, which have cast a blight on communities the length and breadth of Scotland and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) takes up his barracking again, I want to agree with him on the important issue of resources. It is all very well to create new agencies and powers forin Scotlandthe procurator fiscal service, the Crown Office and so forth and our police force, but if there are no resources the new powers are not worth the paper on which they are written. I hope that issue will be addressed.

Ian Davidson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annabelle Ewing: I shall not give way. I want to speak briefly as I know that other Members want to contribute before the debate ends.
	I and my colleagues are very disappointed to note that new Labour Members voted against our amendment No. 229 tonight. It would have ensured that part 3 of the Bill, which went through substantial change in this House, would have been referred back to the Scots Parliament.

John Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annabelle Ewing: No. I want to be brief and allow other hon. Members to speak.
	In the debate on Report, all parties agreed that there had been major changes to part 3 of the Bill. The Minister of State, Scotland Office, told the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on 7 November that, if substantial changes were made, there would be a political imperative to refer the matter back to the Scots Parliament. Those changes have been made, but new Labour Members tonight voted against that referral. That action must be regarded as indefensible, undemocratic and an attack on the very basis of the Scots Parliament. Scots Labour MPs, in particular, should be thoroughly ashamed of their conduct tonight.
	My last point is that the Sewel motion issue clearly remains unresolved. In his comments over the past few days, the Minister of State repeatedly confused the Scots Parliament with the Scottish Executive. The issue needs to be resolved. The substantial number of votes that my party garnered from other parties in the Houseour amendment gained 172 votesshows that there is an imperative to resolve the matter properly, in a way that respects both the spirit of the Scotland Act 1998 and democracy in Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: There were 39 sittings in Committee on this Bill, and we have spent two days on Report and Third Reading. One would have thought that everything would have been said by now but, remarkably, there remains something to add.
	I turn first to the question of Sewel motions. That matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) and by the Minister of State, Scotland Office in his earlier statement. The Minister's statement is to be welcomed. There is no manual for dealing with Scottish legislation going through Westminster in the post- devolution context, especially when it arrives here as a result of a Sewel motion. The experience has been instructive for me and for other hon. Members from Scotland who served on the Standing Committee.
	There is a need to define the role of Scottish MPs, post devolution, in this House. I do not object to the Sewel process in principle, but there are aspects that need to be refined. It encourages a dialogue between Government and Executive that bypasses the important role that can be played by Parliament, both here and in Edinburgh. Those matters must be taken seriously.
	For example, it was drawn to my attention that any subsequent amendment to the Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament will be capable of being struck down by a court if it is not found to be consistent with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. The principal Bill can be given only a certificate of human rights incompatibility, and a number of other, similar issues that will have to be addressed.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and other hon. Members have said that a degree of legal expertise has been brought to bear on the Bill. I am a new Member of Parliament. The Standing Committee considering the Bill was the first on which I have served, and I was struck by how remarkably easy it was to be dubbed an expert.
	However, I and other hon. Memberssuch as the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and for Redcar (Vera Baird)did bring to the Committee's deliberations a certain amount of experience of the criminal justice system. We all approached the debate from the point of view that all the different constituent parts of the criminal justice systemthe judiciary, the prosecutors, defence solicitors, social workers, policedo an excellent job, often in very difficult circumstances. We only ever hear about the occasions when they get it wrong. We do not hear about the many occasions when they get it right and things go smoothly.
	It is apparent, with all these constituent parts, some of which are conflicting, that a system of checks and balances has to be in place. Liberal Democrat Members remain concerned that a number of checks and balances are not present in the way that they might be. I am concerned that the Lord Advocate in Scotland now has yet another function to perform. I hope that the Scottish Executive will keep a close eye on the manner in which his functions, provided in part 5 of the Bill, are to be executed and that, if necessary, setting up a separate Scottish Assets Recovery Agency may be given serious consideration at a later date.
	It is apparent that the days of the Lord Advocate as a Minister in the Scottish Executive are numbered. The number of functions that he has in terms of his prosecuting role and the additional responsibilities provided by the Bill must make that position more difficult to maintain. I say that as someone who has a great regard for the office of Lord Advocate. It is a very important one, but in this post-devolution age there should be no sacred cows. If the reform of an ancient office is necessary, so be it. Let us go ahead.
	Liberal Democrat Members have accepted the need for the Bill. We accept that it is broadly good and wish it well. I shall watch its progress through the courts with great interest. It has been a pleasure and an honour, as a new Member of this House, particularly as a Scottish Member, to be part of these proceedings. We wish the Government well in their dealings with it in the other place.

Mark Field: It will be a very brief speech indeed, Mr. Speaker. It is lovely to have the last word; I wish it were like that all the time in politics.
	I wish to associate myself with many of the comments about the consensus on the Bill. I fear that that is the last word. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: It certainly has been brief.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Government Trading Funds

That the draft ABRO Trading Fund Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Question agreed to.

PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mrs. McGuire.]

David Heath: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak about public entertainment licences. Many archaic parts of the law have somehow survived unrepealed, and some have a sparing connection with reality. Under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, for instance, it is still illegal to fly a kite or slide on ice in a public place. Happily, it is not often enforced.
	The problem with the public entertainment licence laws is that although they are archaic and in many respects foolish, they are vigorously applied by many local authorities. Many hon. Members will be aware of the ridiculous two in the bar rule. I spoke about this most recently on 3 December when I asked a question of the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and mentioned Madonna duetting with Michael Jackson. Let me give another illustration: if Kylie Minogue and Elvis Presleyif he were still alive, as some believe he iswere to do a gig in a pub, they would not need a public entertainment licence, but three folk singers from Somerset would. I do not believe that the attendance would be comparable, and I put that case to the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting.
	I mean no disrespect to the Minister for SportI am delighted that he is to reply to the debatebut I hoped that I could give his colleague an opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of every good west countryman and every adherent of folk music in the country. His reply on 3 December brought unprecedented opprobrium down on his head from the west country. He may have subsequently regretted his comments, and I should have liked to give him the chance to redeem himself.
	Some may believe that I am motivated only by my deep and lasting affection for Adge Cutler. However, although I am interested in and enjoy traditional and contemporary folk music, it is not the only form of entertainment that is affected by the rules. They affect jazz, pop, rock and every form of live music, and public houses and the licensed trade. Restrictions on the ability to perform live music on such premises often have a knock-on effect on tourism.
	Not only licensed premises are affected. Many people do not understand that it is a criminal offence for a brass band to play at a village fete in a vicarage garden because it is private land without a public entertainment licence. It is also a criminal offence for morris dancers to perform in a public house car park without such a licence. Last week's court case of the London borough of Southwark v. Sean Toye showed that it is an offence not only for a performance to include more than two people singing or playing at the same time, but for people to perform sequentially. If one person stands up, sings and sits down and is followed by a second and then a third person, that requires a public entertainment licence.
	Legal actions show that the performance does not even have to be advertised to the public to require a licence. We know that people do not have to pay money for such a licence to be required. However, people indulging in singing on licensed premises also appears to need a licence. That was the crux of the case that Weymouth and Portland borough council brought against The Cove inn. I note that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is in his place. He may know more about that case. The council relied on case law from 1793 to establish that singing on the premises was potentially a criminal offence. For the record, the case was Clarke v. Searle.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is correct about the case in my constituency. The Cove is a fine pub, which I recommend to hon. Members. It has a superb view over Chesil beach. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a shame that my constituents and council officers have spent disproportionate amounts of time corresponding with each other and arguing the toss about arcane legislation? As he said, it is a silly law, and everyone appears to be confused about how strictly to enforce it. It is unfortunate that, in the case that we are considering, it was decided to enforce it strictly. That has left everyone, including me, with a huge burden of correspondence.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he has my greatest sympathy for the casework that has been generated. It shows how ridiculous the law is. The guidance that the licensees give recognises that. The British Institute of Innkeeping's Handbook for the Entertainment Licensee's National Certificate states:
	Where community style singing to music is encouraged to take place, the entertainment will be licensable.
	We might have guessed that. It goes on to say:
	If, however, the singing is spontaneous the council is unlikely to take action, although technically there is a breach of the law.
	If someone gets up in a pub and has the temerity to start singingit has been knownhe is technically in breach of the law. I do not know what the landlord is supposed to do about it: dash out and get a public entertainment
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. McNulty.]

David Heath: No doubt the publican would be required to call time and close the public house.

Jim Knight: About nine months ago, when I lived in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, everyone in the pub just down the road from me broke spontaneously into song after one or two people turned up who had been rehearsing their musical instruments. I confess that perhaps I broke the law when I joined in. I hope that he will forgive me for doing that in his constituency.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the local district council and would have had to take action against himself in those circumstances.
	There is a large coalition of interests against this nonsensical law. The Minister knows that the Arts Council, the Church of England, hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Musicians Union and publicans want the law changed. Indeed, the Government want it changed, as they have said several times. We need to change it because the rules are archaic and arbitrary. The interpretation and the costs that can be applied to the person who wants a licence from the local authority are arbitrary. There is a disproportionate penalty for the so-called criminal offence. The fine can be up to 20,000 and it is possible to receive six months in prison for breaking the law. Not only can it criminalise those who hold licences for public houses and other venues and those musicians who may simply be ignorant of the rules, which is often the case with amateur organisations, but it over-regulates many premises that then face huge compliance and regulatory costs.
	In addition, the law reduces the amount of live music that is available in this country, which is a great shame. I should like to stimulate the performance of much more live music. Many places used to allow live music performances. Over the past 20 years or so, the number has decreased and less than 5 per cent. of public houses now hold a public entertainment licence, which is regrettable.
	The regulations are not in effect because of the number of people who are expected to attend a performance or the capacity of the venue. The rule is simply arbitrary. I would be the last person to argue that there is a case for abolishing the regulations if it meant that public safety was endangered or we risked allowing public disorder, but the authorities have other powers at their disposal in those circumstances.
	The Government produced a White Paper in April 2000 in which they said that they wanted to change things. Sadly, since the general election, and despite the famous text messages that we have heard so much about which were sent to young people on the morning of the election, there was nothing in the Queen's Speech to that effect and no such legislation is pending.
	There is a crying need for legislation to change the regulations. That does not mean simply abolishing the two in the bar rule because it would obviously be more restrictive if we made it a one in the bar rule. We need a complete change. If the Minister cannot give a date for when the Government will legislate, will he at least issue guidance to local authorities on how they should exercise the powers at their disposal so that their decisions are not so arbitrary? That would remove the enormous disparity in costs that exists between one local authority and another. Local authorities need to know what they are doing so that the public, event organisers and licensees of premises know what to expect.
	The Department, which has been asked to provide information on its website, has not been very helpful in that respect. I have a copy of a letter from Philippa Drewthe Department's director of education, training, arts and sportto the director of the National Campaign for the Arts. Among other things, it states:
	We are extremely reluctant to place general information on our website which may alarm ordinary and honest people unnecessarily when their local authority may adopt a policy of non-enforcement or the practice of waiving requirements in certain circumstances.
	The Department is arguing that it will not give guidance because people might worry that they will face the penalties that they may indeed have to face. That does not seem a credible position for the Government to adopt.
	I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and give a real commitment that legislation will be brought before the House in short order. Irrespective of whether that happens, I ask him to provide proper guidelines for local authorities and the public, so that everybody knows where they stand. A less arbitrary and fairer system might stimulate the public, the entertainment industry, live music, licensed premises, tourism and the general well-being of the population.

Richard Caborn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on raising these issues tonight. A few weeks ago, he put a question on the matter to the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who unfortunately cannot be here this evening. He is in the United States, battling for Britain by arguing that it is a good tourist destination for Americans, and by promoting our hospitality and leisure and tourist industries in this golden jubilee year.
	Contrary to popular belief, it is not true that all that my hon. Friend wanted to do was get away from Wurzelgate. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had anything to do with the door-stepping of my hon. Friend when he visited the west country on the Friday after the question was asked. My hon. Friend was confronted with the Wurzels, who presumably got a tremendous amount of free publicity out of the incident. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told me that she had to attend the folk singing awards to smooth troubled waters, as it were.

David Heath: The Minister might like to know that the Western Daily Press ran a headline stating, Wurzelgate: the row that is rocking the Commons. It is true, therefore, that his hon. Friend has a certain notoriety.

Richard Caborn: As I said, my hon. Friend was door-stepped.

Jim Knight: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is promoting British folk music while he is in the United States. He would be interested to know that my local paper, the Dorset Echo, has published correspondence from Americans who say how much they look forward to visiting this country to listen to folk music, what nonsense the two in the bar rule is, and that they are now fearful of joining in with such music.

Richard Caborn: I have no doubt that they will enjoy it, and I shall text my hon. Friend across the pond to ensure that he mentions the matter in his speech to the Americans in the next day or so.
	I am pleased to reply to this debate because we have a fairly good story to tell. In calling for reform of the public entertainment licensing system, the hon. Gentleman is, as he suggests, pushing at an open door. The Government are firmly committed to reforming and modernising our archaic licensing laws, which have been well described as occasionally just plain daft. As he said, a manifesto commitment was made in that regard. We take it very seriously, and I shall explain how we hope to see it through.
	The hon. Gentleman does not have to persuade us that many aspects of our existing laws on public entertainment are at times perverse. As he said in the House in December, it is ridiculous that, in theory, Madonna and Michael Jackson could perform together unlicensed in a local pub, while three Somerset folk singers could not. That is why we are firmly committed to the abolition of the two-musician rule, but the issue goes much wider than that. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to use that example at Question Time to illustrate how stupid the licensing laws are.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, we published the White Paper Time for Reform in April 2000. Before setting out our proposals to reform the licensing laws, it pulled no punches about what was wrong with the existing licensing arrangements. It identified the main problems with current public entertainment licensing, and I shall refer to some of the main issues. There is too much scope for inconsistencies in the approaches of different licensing authorities, which cannot be justified by real local differences.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether we can give guidance to local authorities. I do not think that we can, but I take on board the point that he makes, and I shall speak to officials tomorrow to find out whether we can produce some guidance. If that can be done, I will ensure that it is. I shall also consider the issue that he raised about the website. As a matter of interest, I looked at the hon. Gentleman's website, on which he has given the world the text of the speech that he has made this evening. I suppose that that is one way of ensuring that he is well known in his constituencyhe does not miss a trick.
	The hon. Gentleman suggests that an individual who joins in a singalong with a friend in a pub could be prosecuted under the public entertainment licensing laws and that many law-abiding citizens are breaking the law every day. I am informed that that is not true. The organiser of any public event and the manager of the premises where the event takes place may be prosecuted for breaches of public entertainment licensing law. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) would not have been prosecuted in the case that he explained because people involved in spontaneous outbursts of singing hymns or rugby, football or folk songs may not be prosecuted. So there is obviously a difference of opinion, but I shall not debate that further.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again. He and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) were right to raise the guidance issueI am sure that everyone will be grateful to them if they consider it furtherbut I recall circumstances in which the police may have been advised to give some things less priority than others. I am told that Belper folk club was recently raided by the police. A three-person group was playing at the club, which is run as an all-member club. The police were allowed into the club as new members to avoid the entertainment licensing laws, but they then pursued the matter further. So police time was used in pursuing a case that involves what everyone would regard as a silly law. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether police authorities could be advised that we all regard that law as silly and that we shall change it in due course? I look forward to his explaining when that will happen, as that would also be helpful.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend makes a sensible suggestion, and I am sure that my officials will take note of it. If we can clarify the issue so that police time, which is valuable in keeping our communities safe, is not wasted trying to police silly licensing laws, it would be far better, so he is right to raise that issue.
	The second issue raised in the White Paper is that separate licensing systems for theatres, cinemas and music and dancing produce unnecessary complexity when the main purposes of the regulations are essentially the same. Again, we shall consider that issue in new legislation.
	Thirdly, the White Paper said that there is too much scope for local licensing authorities to impose disproportionate and burdensome requirements on venuesa point that the hon. Gentleman made. Fourthly, there is duplication of the requirements of fire safety and health and safety regulations. Again, we believe that those requirements can be modernised so that they are more effective. Fifthly, there is the problem that fees are set at the discretion of local authorities, with some evidence of excessive charging. That shows that the operation of the law is very wide and that it can be abused to some extent.
	Public entertainment licensing law currently gives the licensing authorities enormously wide discretion, and levels of enforcement vary considerably around the country. Some local authorities are zealous in their application of the law and others are not. The White Paper was about finding solutions to those and other problems across the licensing field.
	The White Paper proposed a single, integrated scheme for licensing premises that sell alcohol or provide public entertainment or late-night refreshment, sweeping away a considerable amount of red tape at a stroke, and proposed a new system of personal licences, which will allow holders to sell or serve alcohol for consumption on or off any premises. It also suggested new measures to back up restrictions on underage drinking.
	The White Paper proposed a new form of premises licence, which will set out operating conditions relating to the impact on crime and disorder, public safety, and public disturbance. Licence conditions should protect against those threats, but not interfere in other ways with how premises are run. It is proposed that the conditions attached to such licences should be set locally on the basis of striking a balance between the operator's requirements, residents' views, and police and fire authorities' assessments.
	To counter and minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, the White Paper proposed that flexible opening hours be introduced as a condition of the premises licence, with the potential for some venues to operate for up to 24 hours and to open seven days a week, but subject to consideration of the impact on local residents. It was suggested that children be allowed access to any part of suitable licensed premises at the personal licence holder's discretion, but that licensing authorities have powers to restrict or deny access for children to unsuitable licensed venues.
	It was also proposed that the new personal and premises licences be issued by local authorities, providing greater democratic accountability to the community, and that licences be supported by a flexible range of sanctions, including temporary closure and temporary reduction in opening hours, instead of the present single, all or nothing sanction of loss of licence. That is a radical package of measures, which we remain convinced strikes an important and necessary balance between the needs of business, including tourism in rural areas, and the concerns of local residents.
	The hon. Gentleman is concerned too about the impact on performersmusicians, singers, dancers and the like. The White Paper proposed the abolition of the two-musician rule because, as he clearly said, any individual playing with modern amplification can easily cause as much disturbance as any four, five or six musicians. Indeed, a single live acoustic guitar amplified by a microphone and boosted through a modern public address system can, as we all know, generate quite extraordinary sound levels.
	Live performers have no reason to fear our proposals. We consulted widely on them. The consultation was not limited to the powerful alcohol interests; we included groups representing the interests of folk and jazz musicians. I shall quote one response to the White Paper. It came from the Association of British Jazz Musicians, which said:
	Remarkably, these reforms could benefit everyone: the brewers and landlords, as well as the present and future employees in the industry; and of course there will be increased opportunities for entertainers, particularly musicians. The reduction in regulation, with consequent savings to brewers and individual licensees, should also mean that there will be more money in the system for the payment of entertainers at a proper level.
	In May last year, we confirmed our intention to implement the reforms by means of primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot anticipate a future Queen's Speech, but I assure him that work on the preparation of the necessary Bill is ongoing. That work includes further detailed consultation with all interested stakeholders. In recent weeks, a draft of the instructions for the Bill was sent to organisations including the Musicians Union and the Arts Council. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Arts Council has a working party on licensing reform that includes representatives of musicians and festival organisers.
	Like all of us, the hon. Gentleman would like reform to be introduced sooner rather than later. Public entertainment licensing law is enshrined in primary legislation and deals with important issues of public safety and disturbance, so primary legislation is needed to bring about the necessary reform. The House will want to debate those matters very fully indeed, because the law affects all our constituents.
	In December, the hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of live music in pubs and inns to the recovery of tourism in rural areas. I entirely agree with what he said then and tonight. Licensing reform will be good for business because it will sweep away a great deal of expensive red tape which no longer serves the purpose of protecting the public, and sometimes deters licensees from staging musical events on their premises. Reform will be good for consumerscitizens and visitors to this country alikeespecially families, offering them more choice and safer surroundings in which to eat and drink and watch performers. Finally it will provide a much needed boost for both urban and rural tourism after a difficult and demanding year.
	Again, I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising some important issues tonight. We are singing from the same hymn book, whether licensed or not. I assure him that we take those issues seriously. A reform Bill, if we can persuade the House authorities to introduce one, would serve an extremely useful purpose, and I hope that that can be achieved sooner rather than later.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.